It sounds like my colleague Andy really wants to believe in open educational resources. But, his usually healthy skepticism has him equivocating instead:

The risk here is quality. There is something to be said for a formal editorial process in news-reporting and in education publishing and media. I’m not one of those who thinks that all things open-source are unreliable, but open media and education applications seem particularly prone to content quality problems. It’s easy to think of examples of free content in our space now that is more than a little unreliable on issues that it takes a trained eye to discern.

Let me try to get Andy fully on board. Replace “open-source” with “charter” in Andy’s paragraph above.

There are two important issues here:

First, nobody sensible is in favor of poor quality instructional materials. But right now, in most states, quality and effectiveness are not the main drivers of purchasing decisions. Billions are solely dedicated to funding textbooks—regardless of the efficacy or quality of alternative options. What we need are policies that allow money to flow to whichever materials are the most effective. For many students and schools that might be traditional textbooks. But others will use those resources to implement 1-to-1 laptop programs, design Flexbooks, or develop new school models, such as New York’s School of One. If we are serious about data-driven instruction, then we need variation, evaluation, and quick cycle times to drive continuous improvement. Our current textbook adoption schemes, with high barriers to entry and little flexibility along the way, are not the answer.

Second, while open is usually thought of as “free,” that’s not the most critical part. The copyright restrictions—especially for publicly-funded materials—are the key issue. Adaptable, sharable, and modifiable should be standard copyright provisions on all state and federal-funded materials. This would allow much easier sharing of materials and content across schools, districts, and states. It would allow for small innovations to existing materials. And, while these new economic models might be disruptive, they actually help to create more open and innovative markets. If innovations or processes around the materials, such as professional development, help improve teaching and learning, then I’m all for an enterprising teacher, university, or commercial firm benefiting from those efforts. The key here is that publicly funded intellectual property is open, available, and adaptable to fit into and add value to the multitude of different instructional needs.

While this work has been on the edge for some time, much of it is maturing rapidly. The timing couldn’t be better. One of the few silver linings of the current recession is that many states, such as Texas, are opening up options and re-thinking the best way to use the large blocks of money dedicated to textbooks. And the federal government, with Race to the Top, the Innovation Fund, and the proposed $500 million for open courseware in the SAFRA legislation, has a unique opportunity to accelerate these shifts.