Openness, technology, state politics, and the challenges of poverty

There was a fascinating article in the Texas Tribune this week about the recent legislation in Texas that, among other things, appears to allow textbook money to be directed toward technology, calls for “open source” textbooks to be authored, and gives the (appointed, not elected) commissioner a new voice in textbook adoptions there.  It is a well-written and thought-provoking article — if you haven’t read it yet, I recommend it.

There are so many aspects of this article worth thinking critically and writing about that I’m thinking of devoting a whole series of blog posts to it. For now, though, I want to talk about this comment by Board Chairwoman Gail Lowe in maintaining that textbook funds should be spent on printed books, not technology:

“Some homes in south Texas, in the barrios, don’t even have electricity, much less laptop capabilities. I think we’re putting the cart before the horse. It’s important that students grasp the material, not that they have a new toy to play with.”

I hope that in saying this, Ms. Lowe was really just venting frustration at the apparent spreading of power from only the board to the board and the commissioner. I really pray that she doesn’t advocate the view that technology is a “toy” and that it shouldn’t be wasted on children of poverty.

It is a crime that in the United States, we have such poverty that children are growing up without electricity and running water, much less high quality education. Surely, QUALITY EDUCATION is the most prominent path out of poverty.

Will textbooks that are written in a way that is neither engaging nor even accessible, especially to children of poverty, help this situation? I think not. Engaging technology is certainly not the only answer, but it is one answer. And with the attitude of many adults in the educational-industrial complex, who are responsible for traditional educational environments, engaging tools for independent, differentiated learning may be students’ best chance.

One more note — A few of the significant benefits of laptops are that they can be charged and run for hours on batteries, that their mobility extends learning opportunities, and that they can facilitate rich collaborations around the world. They are uniquely suited as a tool for developing 21st century skills in all types of environments.

Let’s put politics aside and  give our kids a chance to be successful.

Online and free ≠ open

Newsweek ran an article this week about online courses.  This article provided some publicity for the OER movement…except that the article really wasn’t about OER.

The article said, in part, “In addition to YouTube EDU, Web sites like iTunes U, TED, and Academic Earth allow millions of people to download lectures by some of the world’s top experts—for free. Known as open educational resources—or OER—the movement is turning education into a form of mass entertainment.” Unfortunately, only one of those sites listed, TED, is published under an open license (and with TED’s no-derivatives license, some would refute that).

While the article does talk about MIT’s OpenCourseWare and a couple other open projects, it is really about free online courses. Nowhere does the article define OER or talk about what open is and how open is different from free and digital.

This is sloppy journalism, which seems to abound in our sound-bite-driven, superficial media, but it is also indicative of a bigger problem.

The OER movement needs a more cohesive messaging approach. The benefits and needs for OER and what it can bring to education are overwhelming; we need people to understand that.

How “conventional” do open textbooks need to be?

I’m working on some product plans and business models for open textbooks in K-12 and have been thinking a lot about how “textbook-like” they need to be to get broad adoption.

A lot of the work in OER is reform-driven, and in fact, the most substantive reasons to produce and use OER are pedagogical, not cost-driven. OER allows innovative teachers and learners to differentiate instruction in exciting ways.

Many in OER have questioned whether new open core curriculum should even be called “textbooks” at all.

Still, I’m not sure that an the best path for anew entry is to be hugely innovative.

The first and important goal for a significant new entry into the open ed market should be broadscale use. And the textbook adoption process in K-12, whether in formal adoption states or open states, is such that an innovative product is not likely to even be considered in many places, much less be broadly used.

I know this firsthand, having created some very innovative products that were used by few.

An important note, for those motivated by reform, is that those who are prone to innovate will do so regardless of the raw materials and/or environment. They are doing so now with very conventional materials (although in many cases illegally with great technical difficulty and huge personal time expenditures).

Providing high-quality open curriculum gives these innovators new resources with which to innovate. Providing open curriculum in a conventional textbook format gives traditional teachers a path to future innovation.

Now I’m thinking about how these materials might look like a conventional textbook but also be packaged with a toolset that allows for more innovation when users are ready. Stay tuned for more on that.

Education already has a “public option”

Recently, there has been a lot of fed policy activity on open ed, including the introductions of the Durbin open textbook bill and the Foster Open Source Textbook act [sic…open source applies to software, not OER, but we’ll leave that aside for now], as well as talk about an “Online Skills Laboratory” for open online courses.

These efforts have been called “misguided” by some and have received more criticism than one might expect. I mean, who can argue with initiatives to bring free, open educational resources to the masses? Many, apparently.

One of the big arguments seems to be that this is some effort to enact a government-takeover of the commercial publishing industry. I suppose this argument is to be expected with the publishers having an extremely well-funded and active lobbying effort (which is being quoted frequently in these discussions). Comparing the OER movement to the health care “public option” seems a bit absurd to me though. Didn’t most of us get into (public) education precisely because, in the U.S., education is public, free, and available to all? (See previous post on the equity agenda.)

An important sidenote is that these proposed initiatives do not aim to subsume commercial initiatives. Many, in fact, just try to assure that public funds, such as federal grants, that are already directed at materials development result in publicly-accessible materials. Public funds for the public good seems like good sense to me. And no one is forced to apply for these funds or to open license materials developed on their own dime.

Some have also claimed that it’s not clear what problem these initiatives are trying to solve, given that there are a plethora of high-quality, commercially-produced educational resources already out there. These folks are missing the most significant driver behind OER: The pedagogical demand for open resources comes from the need to differentiate instruction. Remixing content has become a vital way to reach and empower learners of all levels; however, remixing most commercially-published content is prohibited. The publishers are very invested in preserving this status quo, time and time again refusing schools’ requests to give them this ability.

Open-licensed content gives educators and students the ability to remix and redistribute educational content in the way that is best for each learner’s particular learning style. This kind of differentiation is a fundamental part of ensuring every learner’s success.

The equity agenda

I was at a meeting to discuss OER where a very salient point was made. As the group tried to articulate a consensus position on the important principles of using OER, Glen Thomas, the Secretary of Education for California talked about an “equity agenda.” Most of us got into public education, he said, because we think that everyone should have access to knowledge and learning. OER is all about “ubiquitous access to all content” for all learners.

This was reminiscent to me of Jimmy Wales’ goal of giving “every single person on the planet … free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” How can anyone argue with the nobility of that aim?

This also brings to mind the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to a free education.

Some may say that these goals are not new. Nearly since the birth of our nation, we have striven for educational equity and (arguably) have provided it through nearly universal public education, free (in some places) textbooks, etc.

So what has changed?

Two things, at least. First, technology. In today’s world, access to technology and, more specifically, the Internet is a vital resource and tool needed to be a well-educated citizen. To be without this access is to be profoundly disadvantaged. And clearly, we are a long way from equitable access to the Internet in both schools and homes.

Secondly, our learners have changed. They are increasingly diverse with widely varying prior experiences, native languages, reading levels, learning styles, interests, etc. Old one-size-fits-all models are no longer effective. For many students, methods like lecturing and tools like textbooks no longer provide access.

Let’s reconsider the equity agenda. One of the greatest things about America has been a commitment to education for all. We need an update on how to continue this tradition.