it would be hey James.. there must be organisations out there that do that. I heard that Apple Australia issue macs in a box to all their employees, and then it is up to them to work out how to get them running and keep them running.
I think Utility web services with networked users and support is clearly the way to go.. why is it taking IT units so long to catch on? Oh, I know.. jobs on the line.. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM, James Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps uni's provide minimal baseline IT service. Students and staff > then receive their proportion of IT budget to spend it how they see fit. > That would fun to see. > > > Leigh Blackall wrote: > > Yes, that's precisely what I am thinking. Utility internet services, > wireless, and individually owned units. And then some. > > Cost of ICTs is covered by institutional budgets, that are suplimented by > government funding, as well as student fees... so indirectly the cost of > ICTs affects student fees. > > So, from a campaign perspective, one would have to be careful when > lobbying and then over seeing such a cost reduction proposal, that it did > indeed have a direct impact of student fees. A bit like global aid money.. > we have to follow the trail all the way to the end to make sure it gets to > those who need. > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > -- > -- > Leigh Blackall > +64(0)21736539 > skype - leigh_blackall > SL - Leroy Goalpost > http://learnonline.wordpress.com > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1390 - Release Date: 21/04/2008 > 4:23 PM > > > > > -- > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: http://wilderdom.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtneill > Wiki/blog: http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au/x/fIAeAg > Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/jtneill > > > > -- -- Leigh Blackall +64(0)21736539 skype - leigh_blackall SL - Leroy Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
