Becta Frameworks v Open Source

The more astute of you may have picked up this interesting debate initiated by John Pugh MP in his parliementary early day motion, quoting from a campaign group called the Open Schools Alliance. The motion brings together concerns about centralised contracts for educational hardware, software and services (Becta frameworks), and the promotion of Open Source software.

Moodle is a classic example of valued Open Source software developed and supported by a worldwide community of enthusiasts. The current Becta Learning Platform procurement does not include Moodle; why? because there is no supplier to tender for the contract because it's free! The real debate about the use of Moodle is not whether it works; it clearly does for a large number of schools and colleges, but how it can be contractually supported?

Schools can of course choose to have mission critical systems, (and the Learning Platform will become such over the next few years), supported by enthusiasts within their schools, or they can purchase a managed service that includes support and upgrades. In both cases schools' should rely on effective management rather than enthusiastic individuals. The essential argument is one of risk management.

The linking of Open Source to the Becta frameworks is erroneous. The former is not prejudiced by the latter. The frameworks were originally intended to secure factory gate prices for common software, and to lower prices to education, which they are doing. The choice still remains with the schools. Open Source software use in schools will rise (it's already used in education across Europe, and by the Open University), but it will take time. Why? not because of Becta contracts, but more likely because the main market place for educational software is Curriculum Online, paid for by eLearning Credits (eLC's) a government subsidy aimed at propping up the school software market in the face of attempts to provide free digital curriculum resources through the BBC (There is now a proposal for a public value test).

Even the Apple Mac is not well represented in curriculum online; if schools want to run curriculum online software they need to run Windows! There is much great Open Source software that would save schools thousands, but curriculum coverage is not there, and currently requires a mixed approach. The direction of travel though is clear!
Published Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:11 AM by AlanDay

Comments

# re: Becta Frameworks v Open Source

Interesting post. The debate gets hotter though! Its not just about open source, its about ensuring we all get a fair shake. Becta have been pretty unfair ro local authority business units, and are trampling on the good will they have built up over years.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:33 PM by ColinS

# re: Becta Frameworks v Open Source

Very timely and to the point Alan. However, some of the well-meant attempts to simplify and tie technology down for schools run the danger of creating perceived oppositions and conflicts that perhaps ought not to exist - like commercial against open source. Practical and confident people and organisations will probably be exploring and using both. It's crucial that current initiatives are sensitive, inclusive and transparent, and that those operating them have integrity and can respond positively to criticism. Otherwise there is a danger that some services - both commercial and open source - that are truly useful for teachers and learners could be disadvantaged. You are right that schools have the choice, but there is a real tension between that freedom of choice and the kind of "best value through aggregation" that collective decisions can bring and schools are encouraged to subscribe to. If there had been that sense of fairness and transparency we would not still be experiencing the other issue you rightly identify - ELCs and the BBC Digital Curriculum. And I don't think that one will be going away for some time.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:16 AM by Merlin John

# re: Becta Frameworks v Open Source

It is a shame that BECTA have failed to identify Moodle as the best choice of provider for VLE's in schools.  It is obvious that if you want to provide a world class digital curriculum then you need top teachers to design it on a shared platform.  This could be done with relativley little funds and would considerably raise standards.  

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:25 PM by Dave

# re: Becta Frameworks v Open Source

In responding to the comment about Moodle, Kent has taken the view that schools using Moodle need either enthusiastic internal technical resources (and not just teachers, as making it work does require considerable technical skill), or support from a reliable outside source.

We frequently see schools who rely heavily on a technical resource at their school only to find things go pear shaped when they move on. This is one of the dangers of open source and Moodle. In Kent we made the decision that schools who want to use Moodle should do so in the spirit of collaboration and so we provide a server and hosting to allow them to experiment and share their experiences.

Moodle is right for some and not for others. Some want out of the box products for which they are willing to pay, and others want to pay in human resources. Its a case of horses for courses!

Moodle isn't the best choice of provider I'm afraid, as it isn't actually a provider, its a community, and a free download. Not the same thing!

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:45 PM by AlanDay

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)