Anne Schreiber Interview Notes - August 31, 2009

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conducted with Carolina Rossini via telephone on August 31, 2009, concerning Curriki's view of the OER landscape.

Interviewee

AND

  • Peter Levy
    • Strategic Partnerships, Curriki
    • Email: plevy [at] curriki [dot] org

Notes

Partnerships with Traditional Publishers

Peter on Pearson

  • Pearson had lots of conversations with Curriki
  • Pearson did not release their textbook with an open license, but they just released it for free
    • Pearson seems to be guarded and cautious.
    • Thinks that they would to refine their business with their consumers.
  • I see the value of them [Pearson] in the future to provide products that can be customized
    • The value may not be in selling the same book for many in the future
    • The relationship may be much more in a consultant position to built customized curriculum and informed by the state test results.

General Discussion

  • Anne: Publishers still see their content as a “premium content”
    “We spent so millions of dollars to put together a certain content”
  • Peter: I agree that they think that.
    • But customers (ex. Georgia) with huge budget problems may decide to not buy even if the quality is not assured
    • So they may spent some time taking a look at what is free and open

Adoption Process (Peter)

  • Adoption process is clearly dying
    Differed until 2013 in California; now it is free textbooks, not open
  • The adoption process is near a end
    The nature of what is possible with technologies really breaks the idea of an inflexible textbook

Positioning Curriki in OER and Publishing (Peter)

  • We [Curriki] put ourselves as “thought leaders”
    • And try to have them [partners?] come to us.
  • I have been doing this for 3 years and it has changed a lot
    • People in the publishing industry do not understand what OER or what CC is
    • Publishers or teachers: Anything they find that is accessible is seen as "free"
  • The issues in music made people more aware, but still not there
    • So, publishers are “awaking” for it just now
    • It may take years to see the market and business models change, since they have been doing the same for decade
    • Even longer if they wait to see that it is still profitable, and they expect that this will go away.
    • This may be very true mainly to the K-12, very young

Curriki's Future Development

Strategic Plan (Anne)

  • We keep developing and changing; we are developing models as we go
  • Big strategic plan process to move the product forward.
    • Content repository: “innovation zone” and “core content area”
    • Develop core content
    • And charge for customization or similar
    • Engage California teachers in the adaptation of books that Curriki is publishing
      But for that we need to see this as a “project”
  • Peter: we are thinking about incentives

Curriki as Platform (Anne)

  • We would like the districts to see us as a platform
    • But what the district sees is another “vendor” with another “tool”.
    • They do not see this as a “platform to capture the expertise of our teachers.
  • DATA: Peter: 10% of teachers in the country (3010) cut their expenditure by 50% of average spent for teacher: we would save 700 millions dollars per year
  • Unit-size: tremendous issue that we still did not figure out
    ”Core content” unit: 3 to 4 weeks of instruction = similar to the “uber” chapter (ex. “the planets”)

Innovation Zone (Anne)

  • Planned 4 tiers of criteria
    • File checker (“illegal or inappropriate” 24hr to 72hr)
    • Peer review in 2 parts
      • Members comment anything on the system (comment tab, start future, etc.)
        • Now content can be searched by rating
        • Allow volunteers to “become OER citizens"
      • Curriki Review System
        • (Hopefully will be volunteer): Currently part-time teachers w/ 10 years or more of experience
          They have 2 reviewers per subject
        • They received a grant for their review system
        • About 30% of the content gets review in this way
        • It is a very rigorous path
  • Peter: We need to meet/help districts in the level/state they are
    • So quality is necessary before we have mass adoption
    • We can let the “innovation zone” evolve
      But we can move things from the “innovation zone” to the “core content zone”.

Navigation

Back to Contacts for EM
Back to Educational Materials