Ahrash Bissell Interview Notes - July 20, 2009 - Revision history

EGraeff at 14:24, 4 August 2009

2009-08-04T14:24:49Z

EGraeff at 13:45, 4 August 2009

2009-08-04T13:45:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 4 August 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*allow for component parts and materials are funded		*allow for component parts and materials are funded

	~~Example~~: California goes through 6 steps of the process and another state can go through final 4 steps to tailor to that state's needs		For example: [[California]] goes through 6 steps of the process and another state can go through final 4 steps to tailor to that state's needs

	~~working~~ with only OER orgs is not sustainable for ccLearn		*Working with only OER orgs is not sustainable for ccLearn
	Cost argument makes traditional publishers look like antagonists		*Cost argument makes traditional publishers look like antagonists

			Statements you can make that no one with disagree with:
			*We believe that all learners should have access to materials that are accurate, up to date, and
			*We are all in agreement here so what isn't happening here to make these things happen?

	~~Statements you can make that no one~~ with ~~disagree with~~		Creative Commons has been in dialogue with companies that would traditionally be seen as antagonistic
	~~we believe~~ that ~~all learners should have access to materials that are accurate, up to date, and~~
	~~we are all in agreement here so what isn't happening here to make these things happen?~~

	~~CC has been~~ in ~~dialogue with companies that would traditionally be seen as antagonistic~~		Language: free and digital are the only words that are used in California's “Free digital resources” initiative
			*In the "bill" there is language regarding licensing requirements
			*Originally, all mentioning of free licensing was removed by publishers

			Weird things: new bill related to the initiative may mandate that none of the educational material can be sanctioned for the next two years for publishers wanting recoup expenses for textbook adoption processes

	~~What can public financing go toward?~~		We know that [[Commons-based Cases in EM#Cases\|Connexions]] and [[Commons-based Cases in EM-K12#Domestic\|CK-12]] have submitted materials for approval through the process set up by the bill; and they are likely to get their content improved.

			The EM sought in this Bill is technically limited to supplementary material

	~~Contacts~~ that ~~we could follow~~-~~up with?~~		If a publisher submits something that meets all of California's standards (it needs to go through the year-long review process) then you receive a mandate that classrooms use the content. Otherwise, it is ''supplementary'' failing meet ALL criteria and instead going through a lightweight process that is put on a "recommended" list--this where all free digital resources will go.

			*CK-12 (submitted 8 of their textbooks) -- follow up with Neeru Kosla
			*Connexions (submitted only one?) -- follow up with Joel Thierstein

	~~Language~~: ~~free and digital is the only words~~ that ~~used “Free digital resources”~~		Problem: What if you get a textbook approved that meets all criteria but doesn't get mandated? What discretion will they give to teachers to choose materials?
	~~in bill there is language regarding licensing requirements~~
	~~originally~~ all ~~mentioning of free licensing was removed by publishers~~
	~~weird things: new bill / related that states that none of this material can be sanctioned for the next two years for publishers wanted recoup expenses for textbook adoption processes~~

	~~we already know that Connexions and CK-12 have submitted materials for approval through the process set up by the bill; likely to get their content improved~~		California collects all monies oriented for education at state-level and then re-distributes for equal resources at all districts


	~~bill is technically limited to supplementary material~~

	~~if a publisher submits something that meets all standards (then that needs to go through the review process - a year long process) then you receive a mandate that classrooms use the content~~
	~~otherwise it is supplementary if not meeting all criteria and thus go through a lightweight process that is put on a recommended list~~
	~~this where all free digital resources will go~~


	~~CK-12 @ Neeru (submitted 8 of their textbooks)~~
	~~Joel Thierstein @ Connexions (submitted only one?)~~




	~~If you get a textbook approved that meets all criteria but doesn't get mandated~~
	~~What discretion will they give to teachers to choose materials?~~
	California collects all monies oriented for education at state-level and then re-~~distributed~~ for equal resources at all districts
	All non-mandated curriculum/resources are often funded through grants and other individual funding mechanisms (fundraising)		All non-mandated curriculum/resources are often funded through grants and other individual funding mechanisms (fundraising)
			*Ahrash: wouldn't be surprised if this would allow for greater independence at schools

			There is very clear opportunity for partnerships with hardware companies to offer readers

	~~Wouldn't surprise him if this would allow for greater independence at schools~~		Recommendation: Don't shunt the cost issue but rather say that we don't have as many things to pay for training and resources, i.e. let's be more efficient and effective


	~~Very clear opportunity for partnerships with hardware companies to offer readers~~


	~~Rec~~: ~~don~~'t shunt the cost but say that we don't have as many things to pay for training and resources

	let's be more efficient and effective



	~~Potential Contacts~~

			===Potential Contacts===
	Hal Plotkin - involved with initiative from the beginning; now in Dept. of Education w/ Martha Cantor - been doing the Community College funding Bill, Martha Kanter - was one of the early discussants		Hal Plotkin - involved with initiative from the beginning; now in Dept. of Education w/ Martha Cantor - been doing the Community College funding Bill, Martha Kanter - was one of the early discussants

			Hewlett Foundation and other funders of OER initiatives
	Hewlett Foundation and other funders n


	Recommended Contacts		Recommended Contacts
Line 95:		Line 70:
	was involved with the initiative in California from the beginning		was involved with the initiative in California from the beginning
	has been recently involved with the President Obama's American Graduation Initiative		has been recently involved with the President Obama's American Graduation Initiative

EGraeff at 13:27, 4 August 2009

2009-08-04T13:27:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 4 August 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
			'''This interview focuses on California's [[California#2009 Open Source Digital Textbook Initiative\|2009 Free Digital Textbook Initiative]]'''

			ccLearn is writing a grant proposal to fund a fellow to study the California's digital textbook efforts.

			Ahrash contends that
			*The argument of the cost of textbooks (budget problems/need "free" educational materials) is a poor one. This connects low-cost/free to open source content which has an inferior quality connotation.
			*It's important to distance the OER movement from California's initiative because their goals do not represent [http://opened.creativecommons.org/Overview the definition of OER that ccLearn espouses].

			Need to better define what is or is not OER (ccLearn Goal)
			*Draft helping people understand the constitution of what we call a textbook
			*Analyzing a textbook shows there are all these underlying processes that are brought together and called a textbook
			*Prior to the internet required ownership of all of these processes needed by one person and then distributed in a book format
			content + review + editing + publication in various media
			*What we don't want to do is lock in the old world model of single publisher book (not good for public understanding of OER)
			*Pay good author to produce content but require that they release in open license
			**allows for non-profit and commercial organizations to take one aspects of the process and own it / create a market for it
			*allow for component parts and materials are funded

			Example: California goes through 6 steps of the process and another state can go through final 4 steps to tailor to that state's needs

			working with only OER orgs is not sustainable for ccLearn
			Cost argument makes traditional publishers look like antagonists


			Statements you can make that no one with disagree with
			we believe that all learners should have access to materials that are accurate, up to date, and
			we are all in agreement here so what isn't happening here to make these things happen?

			CC has been in dialogue with companies that would traditionally be seen as antagonistic


			What can public financing go toward?


			Contacts that we could follow-up with?


			Language: free and digital is the only words that used “Free digital resources”
			in bill there is language regarding licensing requirements
			originally all mentioning of free licensing was removed by publishers
			weird things: new bill / related that states that none of this material can be sanctioned for the next two years for publishers wanted recoup expenses for textbook adoption processes

			we already know that Connexions and CK-12 have submitted materials for approval through the process set up by the bill; likely to get their content improved


			bill is technically limited to supplementary material

			if a publisher submits something that meets all standards (then that needs to go through the review process - a year long process) then you receive a mandate that classrooms use the content
			otherwise it is supplementary if not meeting all criteria and thus go through a lightweight process that is put on a recommended list
			this where all free digital resources will go


			CK-12 @ Neeru (submitted 8 of their textbooks)
			Joel Thierstein @ Connexions (submitted only one?)




			If you get a textbook approved that meets all criteria but doesn't get mandated
			What discretion will they give to teachers to choose materials?
			California collects all monies oriented for education at state-level and then re-distributed for equal resources at all districts
			All non-mandated curriculum/resources are often funded through grants and other individual funding mechanisms (fundraising)


			Wouldn't surprise him if this would allow for greater independence at schools


			Very clear opportunity for partnerships with hardware companies to offer readers


			Rec: don't shunt the cost but say that we don't have as many things to pay for training and resources

			let's be more efficient and effective



			Potential Contacts

			Hal Plotkin - involved with initiative from the beginning; now in Dept. of Education w/ Martha Cantor - been doing the Community College funding Bill, Martha Kanter - was one of the early discussants


			Hewlett Foundation and other funders n


			Recommended Contacts
			Hal Plotkin, Special Assistant, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
			was involved with the initiative in California from the beginning
			has been recently involved with the President Obama's American Graduation Initiative

EGraeff: New page: ''Conducted with Erhardt Graeff via telephone on July 20, 2009'' == Interviewee == '''[http://creativecommons.org/about/people*82 Ahrash Bissell]'''
Executive Directo...

2009-07-23T19:35:16Z

New page: ''Conducted with Erhardt Graeff via telephone on July 20, 2009'' == Interviewee == '''[http://creativecommons.org/about/people*82 Ahrash Bissell]'''<br> Executive Directo...

New page

''Conducted with [[User:EGraeff|Erhardt Graeff]] via telephone on July 20, 2009''

== Interviewee ==
'''[http://creativecommons.org/about/people*82 Ahrash Bissell]'''<br>
Executive Director, [http://learn.creativecommons.org/ ccLearn]<br>
Email: ahrash [at] creativecommons [dot] org

== Notes ==

= Navigation =
Back to [[Contacts for EM]]<br>
Back to [[Educational Materials]]

[[Category:Educational Materials]]

Ahrash Bissell Interview Notes - July 20, 2009 - Revision history

EGraeff at 14:24, 4 August 2009

EGraeff at 13:45, 4 August 2009

EGraeff at 13:27, 4 August 2009

EGraeff: New page: ''Conducted with Erhardt Graeff via telephone on July 20, 2009'' == Interviewee == '''[http://creativecommons.org/about/people*82 Ahrash Bissell]''' Executive Directo...

EGraeff: New page: ''Conducted with Erhardt Graeff via telephone on July 20, 2009'' == Interviewee == '''[http://creativecommons.org/about/people*82 Ahrash Bissell]'''
Executive Directo...