Leigh, Upon reading this reply I believe we have considerable alignment on this issue. A few questions on this topic as I believe them imporatnt to this conversation.
1) Someone pays for access somehow. To say your institution provides access for free I would question this. Where is the cost for this infrastructure covered? In student tuition fees? or internal to the institutions budget? Or is it provided for free by national infrastructure budgets? Other? 2) No need to go on... But I wonder if NZ has an initiative to create an academic shared service for much of this infrastructure. One thing I have been advocating for is national (or provincial, as in Canada) shared service for many of the items you have listed. Just imagine how great it would be if there was a NZ national infrastructure for all this. I could see at least six of these items moved into this national infrastructure and the costs shared among all the institutions of learning that consume it. (that would be great savings for each institution) Just think of the competative advantage NZ institutions could have in the global distance ed space if they pulled this off. So much more money would be made available for the development of courses not in dealing with infrastructure... Then make a deal with ASUS and give every student an Eee PC 900 with very little (or maybe no) increase to tuition fees... Cheers, On Apr 18, 6:45 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In our institution, we provide access... > > This means: > > Terminals = NZ$2000 x 100s > Support perosonel = $40 000 per year x 6 > Internet provision = 10s of 1000s per year > Software on terminals = $700 x 100s > Maitenance = $500 per terminal per year (includes depreciation) > Periphials = $500 - $1000 per terminal per year > Servers = $15 000 > Website = Team of 4 @ at least $40 000 each per year > Server software = 10's $1000 > Staff training = $100 000 per year > > should I go on? > > ICT is far from cheap, and is probably the single most expensive cost. > Rethinking the way we do all these things - such as FOSS, $500 laptops, > Wireless etc etc.. could save huge money > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Leigh, > > > I am curious why you think it is mostly about rethinking ICT budgets? > > At present the internet is pretty much a free and shared service > > available to all education. Once you have access, there isn't that > > much you cannot do for free on the web. I'll go back to the beginning > > of this thread and re-state, I believe it has more to do with > > rethinking assessment (or support) and accreditation, and making these > > two open... Are you suggesting the ICT budgets be moved out of the > > institutions hands and put elsewhere (funding access, or further > > funding the internet as a global shared service)? > > > Peter > > > On Apr 17, 1:37 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Free as in cost is something I'm interested in. Indulge me on the > > following: > > > > Music will survive long after its institutions die > > > Journalism will survive long after its institutions die > > > Education will survive long after its institutions die > > > > (Inspired by a recent post by George Siemens) > > > > Granted, there will be a lot of loses, but with that impending doom as a > > > possible future for educational institutions, it is interesting to > > imagine > > > how education might be post apocalypse? > > > > Recently, I have been looking at student debt in New Zealand, their > > costs of > > > living, the sacrifices they have to make to get an education.. and then > > the > > > cost to institutions for offering the education services. I'm convinced > > that > > > we could get the cost way way down, to a point where it could be > > conceivably > > > free - so long as there is about 60% public funding behind current > > education > > > services, as it seems there is in NZ. And that's without changing much > > in > > > the way of education practice - most of it comes from rethinking ICT > > > budgets.. we in this thread are only skimming the surface of what the > > future > > > may look like... > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:31 PM, vmensah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > so it will not be called free in terms of cost, but "free" in terms of > > > > access to materials. > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:47 pm, "David Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > The content will be open to everyone, but enrollment in the school > > > > > will be restricted to those in the state of Utah (since the state > > govt > > > > > pays the bills). > > > > > > D > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > This is great to read. What an amazing step to put all this > > forward > > > > as > > > > > > an OER Highschool. You say it will be free to students in Utah, > > will > > > > > > students outside of Utah still have access? Or will all this just > > be > > > > > > "open" within the state of Utah? And therefore be used to prove > > out > > > > > > the model... > > > > > > > There is one thing that jumps out at me from within this > > discussion > > > > > > thread. Are we mis-using the word "Education" within OER. As we > > seem > > > > > > to have agreement that Education is the whole, where learning is > > what > > > > > > you do with the resources. Education includes the assessment, > > > > > > accreditation, etc. that the educational institutions provide. > > > > > > Shouldn't we really be calling these materials Open Learning > > > > Resources > > > > > > (OLR). My point being (in the context of this Bissell article; > > > > >http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bissellbo. > > .. > > > > > > Don't we require Open Access Assessment and Open Access > > Accrediation > > > > > > before we can achieve OER? Because this then makes free the whole > > of > > > > > > Education. Wikipedia and Open Source have nothing restraining > > their > > > > > > domain toward openness. OER has a huge restraint in that > > Assessment > > > > > > and Accreditation are still closed. As we stumble toward OER > > don't we > > > > > > need to wrestle it (assessment, accreditaion) away from the > > > > > > institutions (like MIT, UNESCO, OU, etc) and also make it open > > and > > > > > > free? And not until we have wrestled it away, OERs success will > > be > > > > > > restrained. I wonder what Paulo Friere would have to say about > > the > > > > > > institutions still controlling the Assessment and Accreditation? > > > > > > > I look forward to your reply(ies)... > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:40 am, "David Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Simon and Leigh, > > > > > > > > We haven't been talking about it much, because we're still one > > step > > > > in > > > > > > > the approval process away, but for a year now we've been > > working on > > > > > > > establishing the Open High School of Utah - a publicly funded > > (and > > > > > > > therefore free as in beer to students in the state of Utah) > > > > completely > > > > > > > online high school that uses OERs exclusively throughout the > > entire > > > > > > > curriculum. The final approval should be given this May for a > > Fall > > > > > > > 2009 opening in which we'll admit a class of 9th graders, > > meaning > > > > that > > > > > > > we'll have 15 months or so to put together the entire 9th grade > > > > > > > curriculum's worth of OERs built out to stand-alone quality > > (i.e., > > > > not > > > > > > > OERs to supplement textbooks, OERs as the primary content for > > the > > > > high > > > > > > > school). Then in 2010 we'll do 9th and 10th grade, etc., until > > in > > > > 2012 > > > > > > > we're running all four years of high school. > > > > > > > > All the materials will be freely available, as will our charter > > > > > > > document, as will all the technology we will use to run the > > school. > > > > We > > > > > > > hope to be a model of how OERs can revolutionize the practice > > and > > > > the > > > > > > > funding of both learning AND education... > > > > > > > > D > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Leigh Blackall < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Great post Simon, I enjoy your wit :) > > > > > > > > > Maybe I should clarify what I say about "learning being free, > > > > education > > > > > > > > still costs" > > > > > > > > > I mean the same as you mean - learning is what people are > > always > > > > free to do, > > > > > > > > and with todays enhanced capacity to access information and > > > > communication, > > > > > > > > learning might be vastly improved. > > > > > > > > > But what is education in all that? Well, to me education is > > the > > > > formality > > > > > > > > that we agree is the extra, inflated, and fee driven bit. > > > > Education is the > > > > > > > > bit of paper that says you have been learning... > > > > > > > > > So I think we actually agree, but it may be that I'm being a > > bit > > > > too cynical > > > > > > > > in my use of the work education. > > > > > > > > > Here's a longer post I wrote on it if you're still troubled > > by my > > > > slogan. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:52 PM, simonfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:05 pm, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Cormac, Leigh, Simon, Others... > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback. I certainly hope some > > others > > > > jump in... > > > > > > > > > > > Cormac, > > > > > > > > > > > There is a body of work where the evaluation of a persons > > > > contribution > > > > > > > > > > is evaluated via software; it's not so advanced that it > > can > > > > target a > > > > > > > > > > single person and evaluate what they have done... > > probably > > > > one day > > > > > > > > > > (soon), see these two > > > > > > > > references; > > > >http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/http://www.s. > > .. > > > > > > > > > > Ooo! I can't see it. But that's only because i never have. > > > > Evaluation > > > > > > > > > to me, and I've had to employ graduates to do media jobs, > > > > always comes > > > > > > > > > down to seeing of they, or their teachers, can do it. i.e. > > have > > > > > > > > > institutions prepared the inexperienced for it?. Old > > > > industries, no > > > > > > > > > problem. New industries, like the interactive media ones; > > > > rarely a > > > > > > > > > clue. > > > > > > > > > > Let me give you an illustration of a change going back 30 > > > > years. Unis > > > > > > > > > were trying to "teach" AV production stuff. Many didn't > > have a > > > > > > > > > recording desk. Even fewer had relationships with bands or > > > > actors > > > > > > > > > interested in recording. Even if some students did, they > > > > wouldn't be > > > > > > > > > encouraged to bring those noisy long haired gits into a > > lovely > > > > clean > > > > > > > > > studio. > > > > > > > > > > So one dirty engineer in Sydney started offering courses in > > his > > > > > > > > > studio, which now, though some unis in 49 countries, offers > > > > accredited > > > > > > > > > courses.http://www.sae.edu/. But it wasn't until the unis > > were > > > > > > > > > included in the Learning mix of enough working engineers > > that > > > > the > > > > > > > > > accreditations were given. Until then, we usually just gave > > > > students a > > > > > > > > > piece of paper, and for the more determined, helped them > > find > > > > them a > > > > > > > > > job. Now a three month course has inflated to three years. > > > > > > > > > > The thing > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
