
I was inspired to write the following after reading
Don Ledingham's posting
Campaign against budget cuts in Scottish education.
In the posting he raises the question about how we will afford education in the next 3 to 7 years. He indicates that radical thinking will be required by those involved in education to address the shortfalls in spending.
It is this concept of radical thinking that intrigued me enough to start writing a reply to Don's blog. I didn't post it there because it wasn't a direct response to his original post but rather a series of thoughts inspired by it. So here's my muddled thinking...
Can a concept like radical thinking work in a democratic domain? If you are in a position where you have to seek and gain the consent of a majority then simply conceiving of a radical plan is insufficient to ensuring it's implemented. You need to communicate and persuade the majority of your radical plan and then over time implement it.
Don manages through his TES column, blog, and various other web2.0 outlets to place his [occasionally radical :-) ] ideas into the public domain. I'm sure he also uses more traditional methods to communicate to parents, teachers and pupils. He uses these channels to transmit his ideas to those involved in education.
Then the concepts have to transition from the abstract to the actual. Similar to the process around CfE - from the what in documents to the how in schools and classes; and the with of teachers and pupils. The complexity of this process will take a long time, possibly a generation.
But radical ideas are not associated with long periods of time they are associated with moments -
tipping points in time.
I wonder if the virtual world of the web has raised our expectations in relation to how quickly ideas will manifest themselves in the real world. Has the web2.0 generation shortened the timeline of expected implementation. Not only do we want ideas to happen in the now we want them to be free or at least inexpensive.
Do we expect more for less from the web2.0 world - because the income model doesn't ask us for money?
Is it simplistic to think that the radical idea is enough, when the reality require time, patience and money. Is it that the radical idea is merely an acorn? Does it take a lot of time and effort to make the oak grow?