I read David Warlick's blog post 'What's this about Edupunk?' on the 28th of May, followed by Doug Belshaw's 'Are you an 'Edupunk'? I'm not' on the 30th, five days after Jim Groom's initial post The Glass Bees. Within as little as three days the term had 'totally caught wind, spreading through the blogosphere like wildfire' (Introducing Edupunk).
So, I've been following it on and off, agreeing with some bits, laughing at others, until I read this post today 'Enough about Edupunk'. Posted today, the 8th June and I agree with a lot of it, especially:
"Good educators have been creating “student-centered, resourceful, teacher- or community-created rather than corporate-sourced” learning experiences for centuries. It is JUST GOOD PRACTICE. Let’s assume we are all well-read, well-versed educators who have studied the theory as well as had the experience. We have all read Piaget, Skinner, Postman, and Montessori. We have been teaching our students (maybe even through trial and error? God forbid!) and we have learned what works best. We know that “hands-on learning that starts with the learner’s interests–and makes them relevant” is the best — whether that includes digital technologies or not. So why do we need to label it something other than what it is already? It is already GOOD PRACTICE. To paraphrase Tina Turner (who definitely was not punk): What’s punk got to do with it?"
Reading 'Enough about Edupunk' would give you the impression that the term has been around for donkey's years when it's only two weeks old!
Regardless of your opinions on Edupunk, it's a perfect example of how sometimes, things appear to be over before they've begun. No wonder I feel so out of touch half the time! I just can't keep up!