ICT Intent

Moodle still seems to be centre stage in the ongoing debate over the place of open source software in education. This is primarily due to the knot Becta appear to be typing themselves up in with regard to the learning platform framework and the inconvenient fact that many schools (and LAs) seem to like Moodle.

There is a genuine issue arising from the fact that DIY solutions can lead to too much variability in quality, and can distract schools from the job of helping people to learn things. However, assuming that only commercial developers can address these issues is not true. The quality of free software stacks up very well against commercial offerings– a majority of the Internet runs on open source. Assuming that industry can provide the only robust source of support and expertise is also not true. The open source movement proves that communities can support each other very effectively, and respond to changes in requirements rapidly. There are very well understood financial models to support the development and use of free software.

So what’s the problem? The free vs paid debate is really a red-herring as the origin of software has nothing to do with how pupils and teachers actually use it. Furthermore, it can keep the debate centred on the technology as opposed to its application. A problem does arise if schools see open sourse as a cost cutting exercise and then assume that an already overstreched memeber of staff can maintain the software without a full understanding of the time and skills required. We are back to the total cost of ownership- a notion that needs developing in many schools I know.
So the real issue (for the 80% of schools in which ICT is not ‘embedded’) is the capacity for the schools to develop and deliver on their vision for technology. A school that is able to articulate its educational needs in the form of software requirements, and one that is able to understand the value that its investment in ICT adds to learning is exactly the type of school that is well placed to make confident choices over software (be it free or paid for).

The fact that Becta feels the need for a framework indicates that they feel suppliers are not yet providing the education sector with what it really needs. It also implies that it does not yet thinks schools are ready to have that dialogue with suppliers themselves. However, a narrow view of who might provide for the needs of schools could limit choice—especially for those schools and LAs most able to make those choices.