The promise in a name.
Posted by atstewart on October 3, 2008
I note that Learning and Teaching Scotland have recently updated their GlowScotland website to signpost the ‘National Content’ available within Glow. Now, I happen to be able to access Glow due to being a member of the Highland Glow mentors group but I know that the vast majority of teachers have no access to these resources.
So, can these be named as ‘National Content’ when, beside almost all of these resources, sits the message:
National is an adjective (adverb form: nationally) used to describe a product or publication that is distributed throughout an entire nation, e.g., a national magazine. It implies that the item is available for purchase or access anywhere in the country. (Wikipedia)
Not all of these resources are locked behind Glow’s security shield – some of them have been around for years and have, presumably, been paid for by public funds. However, the new stuff is all locked away and I’m left wondering about how the purchase of these resources has been funded. I’m also wondering why I, as a taxpayer, and my children cannot have access to them if they truely form part of something called ‘National Content’?
October 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
An interesting point Alan – I would argue that yes, they can be called national content, just as Glow can be described as a national intranet.
The purchase of the resources has been paid for by the Scottish Government and procured through Learning & Teaching Scotland. In order to ensure that those individuals that should get access to them can, they sit behind authentication.
But let’s tease that out. Were the resources to sit on the public facing LTScotland online service, then anyone would be able to access them – a considerable amount of traffic to the LTS site are international visitors, who are not covered in terms of the licence agreement. Nor can authentication be managed by IP address, as many service providers used by homes in Scotland are not based in Scotland.
To grant access therefore, the national intranet sits as the method of authentication. It is freely available at the point of use for those involved in publically funded education in Scotland. It would seem therefore that your argument is not with the naming of the resources, as in who is allowing access to them. This I would suggest you take up with your Local Authority?
October 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I cannot argue with your final comment that this is, now, an issue for my LA. However, how is it that a programme of such national importance (and you know that I think it is) has left so many feeling cut off – and clear in the knowledge that it’s likely going to be years until access is fully achieved. This position should never have been reached.
The naming and advertising of the content as ‘National’ grates with me as it has run ahead of the process of ensuring that entitled individuals in all authorities have access to the basic infrastructure. Given the costs of local preparations upon which access is predicated and time delays that were always anticipated this was always going result in uneven distribution of resources.
The confusion and resulting fear of the costs of rolling out Glow are preventing some authorities from moving forward quickly enough. If the basic infrastructure could have been separate and necessary element for all LAs and not been confused with staff training costs, etc. we might have at least have reached a point where staff could request access, even if it was not yet fully supported by a gold standard training package.
I just feel that it ought to be called Glow Content until the postcode element is removed from the equation. If National content is being paid for from taxpayers’ money then the basic infrastructure to ensure equitable delivery of the content ought also to have been paid for and not left to stretched LAs to struggle with.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Maybe I’m not understanding the distinction, but Glow is being paid for by taxpayers money? We’ve called it ‘National Content’ to serve as the distinction between content that is available to all through Glow, and content that is only available to some LAs or even some schools. Perhaps ‘National Glow Content’ would be a more appropriate name?
I wish I had the ability to do something about the timescales for deployment, but other than make noisy suggestions there is little we can do. The timescales are according to how long each LA thinks it is possible to roll out Glow. This weeks announcement by ELC (and to a certain similar extent Clacks) perhaps gives a much more flexible model for deployment that many LAs hadn’t considered as manageable. I suppose the argument is whether it needs to be ‘managed’ at all – if the establishments are created and users provisioned, then perhaps ‘needs driven’ is a far better model?
The confusion/resulting fear over costs irks me hugely, as it’s an argument that I’ve heard from numerous sources. Con Morris of the National CPD Team paints a lovely picture when he asks people when they had their ryanair website training? Answer – they didn’t, they just figured it out and got on with it. If they were stuck, they probably asked someone, but because of their motivation (ie cheap flights) they figured it out. The model of training that we have created and sustained arguably does little for encouraging people to ‘have a go’ – I think I wish more people would just have a go, ask when they are stuck and make connections to people out there that can help them?
October 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I don’t really want to get into the debate about the how and why of this. Just want to wonder how the view fits in with the idea of a world sharing of resources.
We all use masses of material freely shared by educators for many parts of the world as part of our ‘toolkits’ for enhancing teaching and learning. It seems to me that what you are saying is that if the resource was born in Scotland then only those who pay their taxes there should have access to it.
How does that fit with the terms of the Caetown Open Education Declaration as mentioned by John Connell back in January of this year:
We are on the cusp of a global revolution in teaching and learning. Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators are creating a world where each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. They are also planting the seeds of a new pedagogy where educators and learners create, shape and evolve knowledge together, deepening their skills and understanding as they go.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
OK, Andrew. I know you are doing all you can to get things going from your end and I’m a fan of your enthusiasm and personal efforts. The promotion of a national intranet and national content just makes it sound further on than it really is but I can understand the background processes that generate the need for such publicity.
I think the ELC (haven’t seen the Clacks suggestion) model looks admirable – thanks for your post ‘By request’ – and opens the door for those who feel they are ready. I settle for something like that.
It’s important for those at the centre not to forget those of us at the fringes for whom everything is always delayed. Given this, perhaps the sensitivity over the ‘national’ tag may be better understood.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Just for clarification Dougmuse, I’m certainly not saying that “if a resource was born in Scotland then only those who pay their taxes there should have access to it” – when I refer to ‘National Content’ I mean commercial resources that have been bulk purchased by the Scottish Government for use by those in Scotland. Personally, I’d advocate the free sharing of everything if it were up to me!
Alan – publicity frustrates me no end, as it’s easy to feel part of a machine going through a process. You’re right to say that tagging it as ‘national’ makes it sound further on that it is, but I dare say that had we not used the word national, then many sceptics would not get the picture of what Glow is trying to achieve?
Incidentally, Glow will be nothing without the fringes. The majority of innovative work takes place there, not at the centre. I share your frustration at delays, but the one positive outcome is that there will be more people to connect and share with when you come on later? Small consolation perhaps, but something I think is worthwhile. I agree entirely with John Connell when he said that Glow will not see significant impact until its second incarnation. (I paraphrase John – if I’ve got this wrong, please correct me!)