You would have thought that RBCs / LAs would have had enough of telling schools that OSS for Learning Platforms is a bad thing ... but no.
I was recently pointed at this document and cannot believe how short-sighted some people are.
http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/sections/learningplatform/homepage/documents/learning%20platforms%20document.doc
Its a wonderful document!
This bit amused me in particular
[Start of propaganda]
Because as we all know, implementing a commmercial solution doesnt require any of these items. You just buy the license, it installs itself by magic and the staff learn to use it by wearing special Joe 90 Tin Foil hats that download an advanced understanding in 45 seconds.
The fact that the OU is spending 5 million quid on Moodle development is used to imply that Our Lord of the Gambling Chips Primary school might have to shell out similar sums to get the assignments for intermediate reading available to the little darlings. Pah!!!
This bit amused me in particular
[Start of propaganda]
Examples of the REAL costs (Considering the total cost of ownership):
Organisations/institutions wishing to use an open source solution for its learning platform will have to consider the following costs:
-
Development of open source product to design acceptable to whole institution. For example, many of these products are designed for Higher Education and might need adapting for use in schools.
-
Installation of a web server(s) able to cope with scaling and concurrent users
-
Installation and management of a database server(s)
-
(generally) Installation of a ‘php’ and ‘sql’ server
-
Technician/developer able to install and run a stable and scalable installation.
-
Maintenance of new releases
-
Full back-ups
-
Security of institution network (as the network will be accessed from outside the institution)
-
Training of staff
Because as we all know, implementing a commmercial solution doesnt require any of these items. You just buy the license, it installs itself by magic and the staff learn to use it by wearing special Joe 90 Tin Foil hats that download an advanced understanding in 45 seconds.
The fact that the OU is spending 5 million quid on Moodle development is used to imply that Our Lord of the Gambling Chips Primary school might have to shell out similar sums to get the assignments for intermediate reading available to the little darlings. Pah!!!
I've posted a few thoughts at http://elgg.net/mberry/weblog/124259.html
This is also relevantly interesting:
Appears to be notes on Moodle by the founder of the company providing the LGfL's learning platform, digitalbrain with some candid comments on their own products.
Looks like he's just left the company to concentrate on Open Source e-learning solutions of all things, such as porting Sakai to MySQL (which I thought it already ran on?) for/with/alongside the LGfL, Department of Education and BECTA.
Looks like "the founder of the company providing the LGfL's learning platform, digitalbrain with some candid comments on their own products" needs to read PHP Scales and The J2EE guy still doesn’t get PHP
.
Of course it would be nice if everyone would agree to use the same definition of 'scales', at least paragraph;-0.
Of course it would be nice if everyone would agree to use the same definition of 'scales', at least paragraph;-0.
"By choosing an Open Source solution, schools hold the FOUR aces:
qv http://www.sosuk.org/content.php?page=about%20us
- Better Choice
- Better Support
- Better Security
- Better Value"
qv http://www.sosuk.org/content.php?page=about%20us
I don't really disagree with anything that is said in this thread but to counter such 'propaganda' it might be useful to talk about ways of implementing Open Source software that minimise the problems mentioned in this report. Some readers of the report may have experienced problems when an enthusuiast has left a school or college with an undocumented, unmaintainable system. Problems can be with the implementation not the software itself.
There are different 'ways' of implementing OSS, say Moodle, that are more or less suited to different circumstances. For example, a large organisation with significant resources may make large contributions to the OSS development (and thereby influence its direction?) whereas a small organisation may sensibly choose to configure rather than customise so that updates are cheap and easy.
Am I allowed to say that there are probably orgs around who have had 'bad' experiences with Moodle because of the implementation strategy adopted (or because no thought went into implementation)?
There are different 'ways' of implementing OSS, say Moodle, that are more or less suited to different circumstances. For example, a large organisation with significant resources may make large contributions to the OSS development (and thereby influence its direction?) whereas a small organisation may sensibly choose to configure rather than customise so that updates are cheap and easy.
Am I allowed to say that there are probably orgs around who have had 'bad' experiences with Moodle because of the implementation strategy adopted (or because no thought went into implementation)?
Frances,
The points you make are valid, however, I think they apply equally to proprietary options which also can have enthusiasts who leave. There are countless institutions who are moving to Moodle who have been less than successful implementing proprietary solutions owing to absence of a coherent strategy, relevant skills etc.
The points you make are valid, however, I think they apply equally to proprietary options which also can have enthusiasts who leave. There are countless institutions who are moving to Moodle who have been less than successful implementing proprietary solutions owing to absence of a coherent strategy, relevant skills etc.
"Am I allowed to say that there are probably orgs around who have had 'bad' experiences with Moodle because of the implementation strategy adopted (or because no thought went into implementation)?"
Absolutely, and one of the potential problems with Moodle and Free/libre software is that some folks don't understand that although the license is gratis the implementation almost certainly will not be. However having said that as Ray points out the issues are just as valid with proprietary systems if not more so.
Absolutely, and one of the potential problems with Moodle and Free/libre software is that some folks don't understand that although the license is gratis the implementation almost certainly will not be. However having said that as Ray points out the issues are just as valid with proprietary systems if not more so.
I read the document and it wasn't that bad. Sure, it could have had a more markedly neutral point-of-view, but for a paper coming out from a organizational service provider to their own organization members some preference for their own solution is understandable.
The paper is about centralized solution versus decentralized or "DIY" solution. It doesn't even explicitly say that the schools must not DIY, but correctly points out some basic pros and cons of doing so (with emphasis on cons). I don't mind people saying things like "you have to think about TCO" because it's true that all solutions should be justifiable in broadly economic terms (although maybe TCO isn't the most relevant one).
I would find it hard to call anyone short-sighted based on that paper. I think it correctly notes the relative importance of organizational issues when compared to strictly technical issues in education. On the centralized/decentralized issue it comes fairly strongly on the centralized side and tries to discourage DIY mentality. I think that is a much more debatable issue, in theory at least.(*) However, given that they already seem to have a centralized solution set up, I would find it hard to argue that it would be a bad idea to actually use it. As a "centralized solution provider" myself (although for much smaller and tighter organization), I know I'm pretty miffed people who try to DIY.
(*) I think both can be made to work. It is an important strategic decision and once the decision has been made you really shouldn't try to go against it.
The paper is about centralized solution versus decentralized or "DIY" solution. It doesn't even explicitly say that the schools must not DIY, but correctly points out some basic pros and cons of doing so (with emphasis on cons). I don't mind people saying things like "you have to think about TCO" because it's true that all solutions should be justifiable in broadly economic terms (although maybe TCO isn't the most relevant one).
I would find it hard to call anyone short-sighted based on that paper. I think it correctly notes the relative importance of organizational issues when compared to strictly technical issues in education. On the centralized/decentralized issue it comes fairly strongly on the centralized side and tries to discourage DIY mentality. I think that is a much more debatable issue, in theory at least.(*) However, given that they already seem to have a centralized solution set up, I would find it hard to argue that it would be a bad idea to actually use it. As a "centralized solution provider" myself (although for much smaller and tighter organization), I know I'm pretty miffed people who try to DIY.
(*) I think both can be made to work. It is an important strategic decision and once the decision has been made you really shouldn't try to go against it.