Comments on: Another “Merger” in the OER World http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241 pragmatism over zeal Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: More on the OER Transition « iterating toward openness http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241/comment-page-1#comment-45028 More on the OER Transition « iterating toward openness Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:52:28 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-45028 [...] happy to point to this comment by Vic Vuchic from the Hewlett Foundation on a previous post I wrote about what seems to be [...] [...] happy to point to this comment by Vic Vuchic from the Hewlett Foundation on a previous post I wrote about what seems to be [...]

]]> By: Vic http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241/comment-page-1#comment-45027 Vic Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:36:29 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-45027 David, just to correct some of your "facts". The link to the Hewlett Education grants page actually shows over $16 million in OER related grants (including CFAT, OLI, MITE, SAIDE, UMich...etc) in 2009 - I'm not sure what you were reading. This includes over $5 million to new OER projects or even launching new organizations. Hewlett made over $16 million in grants last year that were 100% OER focused. Also, one of the ways to judge the health of a field is by the amount of fiscal resources it has and the diversity of those resources. 2009 actually had the greatest amount of funding for OER field-wide and it was the greatest diversity of funders and revenue yet. In 2009 alone, foundations such as Gates, Lumina, MacArthur and many others pumped over $10 million of investments into OER focused projects. VCs made a couple of forays into OER (you should know something about that). And a number of governments made their first investments in OER. In all 2009 was a record year both in the amount and diversity of OER funding, which is amazing considering most other things in the world collapse financially. Just to put a a stop to the rumors, Hewlett is not shutting down OER, and it is very much a part of what the education program is doing moving forward. To put this in context, Hewlett's endowment (along with all foundations and business revenues) have dropped 40%, so yes Hewlett's OER budget is smaller and it may appear like Hewlett is shutting down OER from the outside. This is just not the case though, OER is the same percentage of the Education program's budget as it ever was and the same percentage of Hewlett's overall spend out. Barring another fiscal collapse, Hewlett will be making investments in OER in 2010 that are in line with previous years, and I can say my call volume from investors who want to get into OER is still growing rapidly including VCs, Philanthropy and governments. David, just to correct some of your “facts”. The link to the Hewlett Education grants page actually shows over $16 million in OER related grants (including CFAT, OLI, MITE, SAIDE, UMich…etc) in 2009 – I’m not sure what you were reading. This includes over $5 million to new OER projects or even launching new organizations. Hewlett made over $16 million in grants last year that were 100% OER focused. Also, one of the ways to judge the health of a field is by the amount of fiscal resources it has and the diversity of those resources. 2009 actually had the greatest amount of funding for OER field-wide and it was the greatest diversity of funders and revenue yet. In 2009 alone, foundations such as Gates, Lumina, MacArthur and many others pumped over $10 million of investments into OER focused projects. VCs made a couple of forays into OER (you should know something about that). And a number of governments made their first investments in OER. In all 2009 was a record year both in the amount and diversity of OER funding, which is amazing considering most other things in the world collapse financially.

Just to put a a stop to the rumors, Hewlett is not shutting down OER, and it is very much a part of what the education program is doing moving forward. To put this in context, Hewlett’s endowment (along with all foundations and business revenues) have dropped 40%, so yes Hewlett’s OER budget is smaller and it may appear like Hewlett is shutting down OER from the outside. This is just not the case though, OER is the same percentage of the Education program’s budget as it ever was and the same percentage of Hewlett’s overall spend out. Barring another fiscal collapse, Hewlett will be making investments in OER in 2010 that are in line with previous years, and I can say my call volume from investors who want to get into OER is still growing rapidly including VCs, Philanthropy and governments.

]]> By: Creative Commons Shrinks CC Learn « http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241/comment-page-1#comment-44989 Creative Commons Shrinks CC Learn « Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:13:48 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-44989 [...] Sharp reaction from Stephen Downes and David Wiley. [...] [...] Sharp reaction from Stephen Downes and David Wiley. [...]

]]> By: Stephen Downes http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241/comment-page-1#comment-44986 Stephen Downes Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:55:50 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-44986 > I know some well-known ed tech bloggers will comment “good riddance,” claiming that organizations are inherently evil anyway, and that the space is better off without them “investing in” and “supporting” the work of open education .... But does no one else see an “interesting” pattern here? This may mean me so I should reply... There is a pattern, which is why I warn of the danger of relying on institution-funded OER. I don't celebrate the departure of anyone from their employment (especially when they have been so obviously pushed). The think is, institutional funding is fickle, and especially fickle when you rub certain agencies the wrong way. Look behind the scenes and we'd probably see the same hand at work behind the changes at Hewlett, Mellon and CC. "The master's tools will never be used to dismantle the master's house." http://ow.ly/10o23 Powerful people get what they want, which is why you cannot rely on their largess to unseat them. I take no joy in this. I know these people worked hard and were dedicated. I regret that they were not allowed to continue. It suggests how close they were to achieve success. > I know some well-known ed tech bloggers will comment “good riddance,” claiming that organizations are inherently evil anyway, and that the space is better off without them “investing in” and “supporting” the work of open education …. But does no one else see an “interesting” pattern here?

This may mean me so I should reply…

There is a pattern, which is why I warn of the danger of relying on institution-funded OER.

I don’t celebrate the departure of anyone from their employment (especially when they have been so obviously pushed).

The think is, institutional funding is fickle, and especially fickle when you rub certain agencies the wrong way. Look behind the scenes and we’d probably see the same hand at work behind the changes at Hewlett, Mellon and CC.

“The master’s tools will never be used to dismantle the master’s house.” http://ow.ly/10o23 Powerful people get what they want, which is why you cannot rely on their largess to unseat them.

I take no joy in this. I know these people worked hard and were dedicated. I regret that they were not allowed to continue. It suggests how close they were to achieve success.

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1241/comment-page-1#comment-44984 Mike Linksvayer Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:45:32 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-44984 Hi David, I don't expect this change to make a short term financial difference. In the longer term mission focus is crucial to the sustainability of any nonprofit, in terms of both money and execution. That's one reason we're making the change now, to focus our role in OER on one that is leveraged and sustainable in both senses. The other reason is highlighted by your post -- ccLearn was never a separate organization and having it appear to operate quasi-independently incurred a large opportunity cost -- OER was not a core part of CC's messaging, and it should be. One way to look at this is traffic to creativecommons.org vs learn.creativecommmons.org -- approximately a 100x difference, or 1000x if the license pages are included. You're right of course to bang on the sustainability drum, and moreso your active experiments in sustaining projects. Funding public goods is hard, and CC and OER are no exceptions. Mike (CC) Hi David,

I don’t expect this change to make a short term financial difference. In the longer term mission focus is crucial to the sustainability of any nonprofit, in terms of both money and execution. That’s one reason we’re making the change now, to focus our role in OER on one that is leveraged and sustainable in both senses.

The other reason is highlighted by your post — ccLearn was never a separate organization and having it appear to operate quasi-independently incurred a large opportunity cost — OER was not a core part of CC’s messaging, and it should be. One way to look at this is traffic to creativecommons.org vs learn.creativecommmons.org — approximately a 100x difference, or 1000x if the license pages are included.

You’re right of course to bang on the sustainability drum, and moreso your active experiments in sustaining projects. Funding public goods is hard, and CC and OER are no exceptions.

Mike (CC)

]]>