Maybe it is because I am reading this book with the idea of influencing my students (and their parents) but the idea of harnessing the influence leaders is somewhat disturbing. I don't dispute that it might be extremely effective. But I am very troubled by the idea of singling out the popular kids, to give them special attention, to get them on my side... Possibly I am looking at this in the wrong way. Would love to hear the thoughts of others.
I was viewing this chapter more from my perspective as the sole district level technology and curriculum coach in our school district grades k -12. I need to have more people sharing information and ideas with teachers and I have been trying to decide which of the great teachers on our Technology Advisory Council are Innovators and which are Influence leaders. Most of them have done a great job of sharing our tech infusion vision at school sites. At least one of them might be an innovator though, and this chapter verified my suspicions that that has worked against us at the site in question.
I haven't read this book from the perspective of a classroom teacher with students at all. Though, I think teachers do miss out when they don't allow the natural student leaders in the classroom to have more freedom to lead.
I don't think this is about giving special attention or popular kids. I would argue that influence leaders are not necessarily the most popular kids socially, but they are kids who other students respect.
Your take on this is interesting and thought provoking.
In fact if you get down to it, any time we talk about effectiveness in a social enterprise like teaching and learning I find it a bit unnerving. Learning can be messy and some of the best things we can learn happen when we are "ineffective" and making mistakes, making guesses and so forth.
Interesting
This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts
It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member