Earlier today the Open High School of Utah (disclaimer: I’m the school’s founder and currently serve on its board) issued the following press release. Congratulations to Sarah and the whole school. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 28, 2010 Contact: DeLaina Tonks, (801) 725-3396 Director~Open High School of Utah dtonks@openhighschool.org Online Teacher Named Utah Charter School Educator of the Year Open High School of Utah, a virtual charter high school serving students statewide, announces that online math teacher, Sarah Weston, is awarded Utah Association of Public Charter School Educator of the Year. ...

The world is increasingly divided. The world is increasingly bitterly divided. Of all the things I worry about late at night, lying in bed unable to sleep, the almost absolute absence of civility in our nation’s political discourse has loomed largest lately. Everyone on the left seems to think everyone on the right is a moron. Everyone on the right seems to think everyone on the left is a moron. The louder you scream and the meaner the things you say, the greater standing you seem to have in your political group. The recent round of vilifications of “Republicans in Name Only” and “Democrats in Name Only” provides a preview of what may soon come - an America where radicalism (i.e., actions and words showing your allegiance to either the radical right or the radical left) becomes the primary political currency. There is precious little room left for those in the center who put pragmatics before ideology and would rather discuss and understand than accuse and belittle. ...

So, the OKF claim to define the open in open content. I’ve come to terms with the fact that few people actually read what I write. But that’s still no excuse for people coming along six years later (in 2004), co-opting my terminology, and then getting the definition wrong by 180 degrees. If they want to define the open in open knowledge, that’s their business. However, the definition of the open in open content is available at http://opencontent.org/definition/. ...

Diana Oblinger, the President of EDUCAUSE, today announced the Next Gen Learning Challenges program. Information about the program, including the involvement of the Gates and Hewlett Foundations, is included in Diane’s announcement letter below. I’m humbled to serve on the Advisory Panel for the program, and am deeply interested in the topics of the first set of challenges identified for grant-making: Challenge 1: Open Core Courseware Expand access to high-quality, openly licensed courseware for developmental and general education. Challenge 2: Web 2.0 Engagement Integrate interactive Web 2.0 approaches to stimulate deeper learning and ultimately improve college readiness and completion. Challenge 3: Blended Learning Expand the use of established, effective online and face-to-face learning models on a cost-effective basis. Challenge 4: Learning Analytics Foster the development and implementation of easily accessible learning analytics for those directly involved in student success. The announcement reads: ...

I sent the following letter to the editor of the Washington Post, who reported on the MCPS / Pearson deal. It looks like they’re not running it, so I share it here. Montgomery County Public Schools’ shortsighted decision to sell its nationally recognized and taxpayer-funded curriculum to an education publishing company (Re: Global firm to pay Montgomery, Md., schools millions for elementary curriculum; June 9, 2010) will only further exacerbate the education budget crises in the region and throughout the nation. ...

Here’s one of the proposals I submitted for Open Ed 2010: The most naïve kind of hype around open educational resources (OER) says that OER are more effective pedagogically than proprietary educational resources (PER). Can we justify this claim? First, it is critically important that we understand that “effectiveness” is not characteristic of an educational resource. Without a proper conception of the origin of “effectiveness” we cannot ask meaningful questions about the comparative effectiveness of OER and PER – because we will not know where to look. ...

This must be the single most popular post title on my blog… In response to my earlier post, Yes, Stephen, but Who Cares?, Stephen responds: I care, David. Because the next result on Google won’t be the free version, it’ll be another pay version. And the next and the next and the next. That’s how SEO works. If SEO worked this way, Elsevier and Springer would keep us from ever finding articles available in PubMed. Microsoft would keep us from ever finding Open Office. Adobe would keep us from ever finding the GIMP. Et cetera. And yet, of course, they’re not able to keep us from finding these things. Elsevier alone had over $2 billion in operating profits last year, so they have the “means.” And their entire business depends on people licensing content from them, so they have the “motive.” And if SEO were as easy to manipulate as you say, they’d have the “opportunity.” means + motive + opportunity usually = a crime, and yet I can still find articles in PubMed through Google and Yahoo. If Elsevier can’t get it done, who can? Microsoft has had tons of cash on hand forever, and they haven’t been able to push Open Office to the 30th results page. It just isn’t happening. ...

Stephen comments on Stian’s post: I don’t want to say “this is exactly what I meant,” but, this is exactly what I meant!. And it’s why I use the NC clause in Creative Commons. e-century reports: “One of the major reasons for this change was because some companies are trying to archive the articles published by us for pure commercial purpose – they will ’lock up’ all those articles on their websites and ask readers to pay to access them. This is obviously not right, and against our intention to keep all articles openly accessible to all readers, no matter where they are archived.” So, don’t tell me any more that this won’t happen. It does. ...

Recently there have been some conversations about trying to craft a consistent message about OER that can be used with policymakers, particularly those in Washington DC. This exercise is necessary because, like it or not, the term “open” requires explaining. As does the term “free.” And a “message” that requires lots of explaining is a message that still needs crafting. I recently heard the term “unobstructed license” batted around as the potential phrase we should use in our conversations about OER with policymakers. This is possibly the worst phrase I’ve heard recommended yet, for a number of reasons. (1) No one is currently using this phrase, so no one (even folks in the OER community!) knows what it means. (2) Consequently, it still requires an explanation. (3) The phrase is grammatically incorrect, if I understand what it’s trying to mean. I think it’s trying to mean materials who use is unobstructed by a license, or a license that removes obstacles from your use of a resource, or something like that. However, in the phrase “unobstructed license,” “unobstructed” modifies the word “license.” So we find ourselves talking about a license that is not obstructed in any way. An “unobstructed license” sounds more like DMCA or ACTA style copyright - like a license whose enforcement is unobstructed by little nuisances like Fair Use… ...

If you haven’t submitted your presentation proposals for Open Ed 2010 in Barcelona this November, you’d better do it soon! The Call for Papers closes this weekend.