OpenEd-Incentivizing behavior

I read an interested article about a program in New York that offers financial incentives to selected families for participating in education, including payment for attending parent conferences, improving student performance, and even graduating. Opportunity NYC is modeled after a program in Mexico called Oportunidades (more info here), which has been replicated in many countries around the world.

These kinds of initiatives are called “conditional cash transfer” programs. The idea is to reduce poverty and encourage desired behaviors by providing cash incentives to groups who meet specific criteria. These programs have been successful in reducing poverty, increasing preventative health care, and raising school enrollment.

This is interesting in light of our recent discussions about compulsory education. Many of us expressed opinions that while we value education and view it as a basic human right, perhaps it should not be compulsory.

A conditional cash transfer program offers an interesting alternative.

Some have criticized the Opportunity NYC program as being patronizing in the way it offers cash payments to poor people. Others have said the money could be better spent in other ways. However, this bold experiment just might work (as it apparently has in many other places).

It is certainly a very direct funneling of funds toward those in need with little chance of misdirection or enriching unintended middle parties. The key will be in reaching the right people and making sure the behaviors incentivized are the ones that will result in the desired outcomes, in this case, a successful educational experience for children.

What do you think?

OpenEd-Free vs. not quite completely free

In Giving Knowledge for Free – The Emergence of Open Educational Resources, the authors talk about what “open” really means. One issue that comes up frequently in this regard is the various restrictions that an author may include as a part of the license terms. Some think that licenses that restrict the ability to modify a work or to use it commercially mean that the work is no longer “open” or “free.”

I just listened to some interesting related commentary on Joi Ito’s opening presentation at Wikimania on the WikipediaWeekly podcast.

They talked about open content that is completely free ala the free culture movement vs. various Creative Commons licenses that allow some commercial variations. Many in the free culture movement have argued that anything less that completely free is not free at all. The discussion on the podcast and Ito’s talk dispute this however.

One interesting point they sited was that people need a way to “get their feet wet” with something comfortable. (And completely free is uncomfortable to many.) People dabbling in open content often begin by offering their own content with a more restrictive license. However, over time, they then move to licenses are that completely free, shareable, and alterable.

This has certainly been my own experience. I am a product of a background that includes stints in textbook and software publishing, as well as various for-profit education ventures. Also, I live in the United States, the undisputed home of free market capitalism and a make-all-the-money-you-can culture. ;) As such, my first reaction to open content a while back was something like “That sound nice for some people [academics, hobbyists, etc.], but it doesn’t make a lot of sense for ‘real’ [for-profit] information providers to make all their stuff free.”

Over time, though, my thinking has expanded (I hope :). A big milestone for me was reading Wikinomics. This book discussed in depth the fact that capitalism and open resources are not mutually exclusive. It also got me really excited about the potential that mass collaboration has to change the world.

And once you start thinking about changing the world, who cares how much money you make? :)

OpenEd-Is education a “basic human right”? – Part 4/Conc.

Well, for all of the writing I’ve done on this, I haven’t really answered the question:

In your opinion, is the “right to education” a basic human right? Why or why not? In your opinion, is open *access* to free, high-quality educational opportunity sufficient, or is it necessary to *mandate* education through a certain age or level?

After all the reading and reflection I’ve done, I would say that the right to education should be is a basic right, but that education should not be compulsory in all cases. For several reasons, I’m not comfortable making compulsory education a global imperative.

Most have to do with local issues. First, some countries are simply not economically capable of providing universal free education. (Also, the charging of school fees as an alternative to paying for education through taxes is a complicated local decision related in part to local logistical issues. Somehow, someone has to fund education. “Free” is an oversimplification.) Beyond that, I think there must be allowances for local issues of culture, society, values, and governance. I don’t pretend to know what all those issues are, but I think the specifics need to be defined by local populations. (See Stian’s discussion of some of these issues.)

[Another approach to resolving the discomfort I’m feeling with mandated universal education is giving a right to decline as discussed by Greg Francom and others.]

For the country that I live in, a prosperous developed country, I think that the right to a free universal education is a basic human right. Why? Our country has the means to provide this and there is a consensus among our populous that it is a basic right. We may differ somewhat in the specifics of what Tomaševski and/or the UN recommend, but the fundamental right is there.

In our country, I think open access to free, high-quality educational opportunity is not sufficient, but that instead it is important to mandate education through a certain age or level. However, I also think that parents have a right to choose (within some parameters) the specifics for their own children’s’ education.

OpenEd-On using technology as a tool for education

In reading Dr. Wiley’s testimony to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education – Panel on Innovative Teaching and Learning Strategies, I was reminded by how many different things “educational technology” can mean.

In an earlier post, I shared my feelings about Tomaševski’s very negative feelings about technology’s use in education. I feel sure that her idea of “educational technology” must have been very different from mine.

In Dr. Wiley’s testimony, he evaluates a “normal online course” against the six dimensions of new characteristics of the world (digital, open, mobile, connected, personal, participation) and finds online courses to be meet the characteristics (“to”) in only four of six cases.

However, this course (Open Ed) clearly meets all six characteristics. Perhaps, it is not a “normal” online course. :) I say this as I am working on this course on a sub-laptop sitting on my couch, connected to the world and a million plus hugely valuable resources. I am participating with others (and writing for anyone in the world to read), but mostly viewing this course as a highly-customized personal experience for my own enrichment. (This provides a good opportunity to say that I hope Dr. Wiley doesn’t feel obliged to read all my ramblings for this course. I write a lot, because that is how I process and synthesize, but I don’t expect anyone to read it all.:)

I’m happy to say that most of my more recent experiences in education, both as a teacher and as a learner, have been digital, mobile, connected, personal, and participative. To a lesser extent, some have also been open. I’ll be working on increasing the openness in my learning experiences in the future.

OpenEd-Is education a “basic human right”? – Part 3

I found Primer No. 2 by Dr. Katarina Tomaševski to be helpful in illuminating the gap between “should” and “is.”

I think this gap is part of what I am struggling with in the question for this week. If you ask me “Should education be a ‘basic human right’?” the answer is a much easier yes. However, is it? That is more difficult.

In Primer No. 2, the author says “Human rights law defines rights as claims addressed to governments; these specify what governments should and should not be doing. Law is symmetrical and rights cannot exist without corresponding governmental obligations.” Later, she goes on to say that “Because law is symmetrical, the right to education entails corresponding obligations….Nobody can be required to do the impossible.”

Clearly, though, in the current world, for largely economic reasons, it is impossible for some countries to provide universal free education to all children. Tomaševski acknowledges this.

That, then, is the gap. For these countries, it seems difficult to impose obligations and enforce punishments for failing to meet those obligations.

Tomaševski poses several possible solutions to this, many of which involve the international community, regional coalitions, and organizations like the World Bank. All of these are likely to take considerable time.

This is the time though to elevate the importance of education as a basic human right. One of Tomaševski’s lasting legacies is starting the clock ticking and creating awareness for these issues.