Open Ed, Trump, Brexit

The #Trexit Conversation

I’ll be leading  a panel discussion at OER17 called Open Education in a time of Trump and Brexit.  Joining me in the panel live at the conference will be Maha Bali (@bali_maha), Lorna Campbell (@LornaMCampbell), and Martin Weller (@mweller).  While we four could easily carry on a lively discussion for 80 minutes (some would say I could jabber that long myself), I wanted to bring in additional perspectives.  To that end, I have enlisted the help of a few people to provide different perspectives to get the conversation going.  These people, Robin DeRosa, Nadine Aboulmagd, Chris Gilliard, and David Kernohan, unfortunately couldn’t attend the conference in person, but they’ve kindly provided us video statements intended to help provoke the discussion and stimulate our collective thinking and learning.  I’ve embedded those video statements below in this post.

I know many, perhaps most or even all, open educators have thought about the implications of the Trump election, the Brexit referendum, and other political movements for open education and OER.  I hope this panel can help stimulate a wider and deeper discussion and sharing of ideas.  Feel free to participate on Twitter with the hashtags #trexit #oer17.   Or, add your comments here or blog them yourself.

The Topic

The original motivation for this panel discussion came from private discussions among some of us just after the US presidential election in November 2016.  We thought those discussions should be expanded and made more open. After all, one of the core values of the open education movement is that more participation and open involvement improves the outcomes, right? Hence, this panel discussion with the open education community at OER17. The original proposal for this panel discussion stated:

Like the Internet itself, the Open Education movement, including OER and OEP, has grown in a world of globalised capitalism that has been dominant in North America and Europe, and indeed, developed and growing economies. The Brexit vote, Donald Trump’s election, and shifts toward nationalist-right parties elsewhere are changing the political landscape. At a minimum, the rhetoric of these movements, both in support and opposition, has altered public discourse and often attitudes toward higher education. These political shifts have complex and multifaceted implications for the open education movement.

At the OER17 conference in London, our panel aims to stimulate deeper thought beyond our initial reactions to these political movements. We hope to provide different perspectives on the relationship between Open Education and the political changes represented by Brexit and the Trump election. Many questions arise, including:

  • What challenges do these political movements pose for Open Education? What opportunities?
  • Open Education movement has largely embraced values of inclusiveness, sharing, connectedness, equity, voice, agency, and openness. How might these values be furthered under these new regimes? How might these values be hindered?
  • Will our work in the open education movement change?
  • In what ways can we shape the future of the Open Education Movement?

When considering the relationship between Trump/Brexit and the OER/ open education movements, it is tempting to think in narrow terms. We’re tempted to see think first of funding implications, academic freedom concerns, or wavering support for education as a public good.   These are valid concerns. But as our three “provocateers” suggest, there’s more to the intersection of Trump/Brexit and OER/Open Education than we might think at first.  It’s complex.

The Provocations

Robin DeRosa

Robin DeRosa, (@actualham), suggests we observe and consider the parallels between the larger political environment and the environments we create in the classroom. (4:47 min)

Nadinne Aboulmagd

Nadinne Aboulmagd, (@NadinneAbo), provides a close-up insight into some challenges the Trump administration policies create for open scholarship. Note: Nadinne was prevented from creating the video at the last minute due to illness but has very generously shared her script for the video here.

Chris Gilliard

Chris Gilliard, (@hypervisible),  notes the role of surveillance and monitoring and urges us to think of open as in freedom. (2:28 min)

David Kernohan

David Kernohan, @dkernohan, takes a look at the “roaming auto-didacts” involved in the Trump/Brexit movements and considers what open education/OER did and did not contribute.

At this point, we’ll insert insightful and witty commentary from our panelists.

UPDATE:  After I put this blog post together but just before the panel started, we received the video from Nadinne (who went beyond the call of duty!).  I wanted to include it:

Mythbusting Immigration – Presentation Slides

If the embedded slides don’t display, you can access the file in Google Slides at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uZeLVGcMYcsnxLKmpNRw9-TcJey5Kcfch6u4fGPrnj0/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

A last minute addition to the readings from Vox: http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/17/14951590/nas-report-immigration-economy-taxpayers-trump

 

Still Running Errands for Open Learning Ideas

A big day planned today.  I’ll be spreading the word about Domains of One’s Own projects, Reclaim Hosting, and open learning to community colleges. I’ll be presenting twice today at the League for Innovation in Community College’s big Innovations 2017 conference.  Actually, we will be presenting and spreading the word today.

First up, I assist my fantastic colleague Leslie Johnson as she tells how the LCC Center for Teaching Excellence  uses our Open Learning Lab to promote sharing of teaching ideas and teaching faculty how to use open learning techniques like writing-in-public assignments.  The session is titled “Connect and Create: Teaching Faculty by Modeling Open Learning”.

Then in the afternoon we’ll switch roles and she’ll help me as I spread the word about open learning and Domains projects to community colleges. It’s the latest incarnation and update of story of how a community college started a Domains of One’s Own project. I call it “Running Errands for Ideas”.  The slides are here.

If you’re interested in learning more, contact us either by comment here or on the Twitter. I’m @econproph on Twitter and Leslie is @mtflamingo.

The OER Content Trap

Recently I’ve been following  a discussion about the future of OER (Open Educational Resources). Most of the discussion has been via blog posts between David Wiley (@opencontent) and Rajiv Jhangiani (@thatpsychprof).  Others have contributed via Twitter.  It’s a friendly exchange with the key blog posts having been David’s

and Rajiv’s

The discussion is not really a new one. It’s the question of how to promote OER. There has been for a while two “camps” or points of view.  To simplify (or oversimplify) the question:  To expand OER use do we argue the “free textbooks” aspect emphasizing retain and reuse, or do we argue the “open pedagogy” practices aspect and emphasize revise and remix powers.  The points are, of course, well made and I’m not writing here to disagree.

Rather, what I want to suggest is that we’ve fallen into a trap by our use of the word “resources”.  We need to stop thinking about “resources” period.  No more OER.

Yes, I have a proposed replacement – wait for it.  First, let me explain where I’m coming from. The past couple of weeks I’ve been reading a book called The Content Trap by Bharat Anand.  Read it. Do it. It’s a highly readable, story-laden book about business strategy for digital businesses. But despite being so accessible, it’s also strongly supported by good research and the economics of business strategy.  Trust me. I’ve been a full-time academic for the past 15 years, but I’ve spent nearly four decades in the business strategy world. I spent a good 20+ years working on these kinds of issues: how to expand adoption of a new technology/product/process/service and how to compete. I spent a lot of time a few years ago helping to craft strategy for a college.  I don’t praise business strategy books easily. Most are crap or pablum. The Content Trap is not. It is based on both sound empirics AND sound economics and behavioral analyses.  The oversimplified, too short TL;DR version of Content Trap is this: focusing on the product is a trap. It’s the connections that count: connections between products, between customers, between producers.

Rajiv is right that part of the problem is changing minds and certainly understanding the relevant psychology should inform our advocacy.  David is also right about a very important thing: we are competing against the for-profit publishers and the publishers are pivoting their strategies towards platforms.  But the essence we’re facing is a strategic competitive problem.  It’s the Open folks vs. the for-profit, lock-down, lock-in publishers.  I think by focusing on the “resources”, the content, we’ve fallen into the content trap.  We worry about how to finance the costs of production of “free” textbooks. We worry about competing for adoption of OER texts vs. the publisher texts. We’re trapped into focusing on the content.  Even when we talk about open educational practices or pedagogy, OEP, we’re still focused on the content because we focus on how the content is used.

We’re not alone in this trap. Nearly all higher ed institutions are there too.  They almost all think their special sauce is are the courses they teach or the research publications they produce. They’re wrong.  Similarly, the special sauce in open education isn’t the OER, the resources, books, videos, and content. The real special value is in the connections people make, the community that forms, and the identities they forge.

So what should we be focusing on? Open Education Connections or Open Educational Communities. OEC.

I’ll have more to say in the coming month, God willing.  I know this is just kind of a tease so far but I don’t have time tonight to go further. In my own head I’m beginning to visualize winning strategies built around this concept of OEC’s. It’s a lot more complex than just a simple name, great strategies always are.

I’ve got a panel discussion at OER17 conference coming up in April.  I’m trying to put together a couple longer blog posts in preparation for that.  Right now I’m thinking this OEC idea might fit.

 

Death of the American Dream

Note: This post is for both my talk at the Lansing Community College Centre for Engagement and for this week’s class discussions in Comparative Systems.

lady_madonnaFor those of us who have grown up in the late 20th century or the early 21st century, the American Dream has been a familiar relative – an Uncle Sam that was always there. The American Dream was the myth that united us. More than any other nation perhaps, the U.S. has always been defined more by concepts and ideals – these myths or stories – than by the traditions of blood, tribal roots, or land that defined so many other nations throughout history.

It can be argued that the American Dream, or at least our modern conception of it, was born in 1931 in pages written by James Truslow Adams.  Wikipedia recounts for us:

The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (democracy, rights, liberty, opportunity, and equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.[1]

The American Dream is rooted in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that “all men are created equal” with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”[2]

There are lot of ways to operationalize the concept of the American Dream, but for these purposes I’m going to basically identify three features, all of which are primarily economic.

The “American Dream” meant that anybody in America, regardless of birth or station or inheritance, could through ordinary hard work do the following:

  • “do better than Dad”. In other words, income and wealth for each succeeding generation should be significantly higher.  In inflation adjusted terms, sons and daughters should make more money and have more wealth than their dad or mother did at the same age.
  • homeownership – Americans should have their own property -usually a freestanding house.
  • upward mobility – it should be possible through strength of character and hard work – “merit” – to rise up to higher income and social classes than what a person was born into.  This is the classic Horatio Alger story.

If the American Dream were a person born in 1931 when Adams coined the phrase, then by these criteria we can describe his (her) life as:

  • a hard scrabble childhood in the Depresssion
  • emerging as a teenager in 1945 from World War II, the American Dream hits a stride.  The dream was real, if unevenly distributed across races, between 1946 and roughly 1980.
  • Starting around 1980, our midlife Dream now begins to slow down. It is increasingly faking it by borrowing money to keep up appearances of success but not really making it happen.
  • In this century, the Dream collapses.  Slow economic growth, rising income inequality, and massive shifts in economic policies mean then end of the American Dream.

By the time the Millenials arrive on the scene as young adults, the concept of American Dream is more a nightmare or cruel joke than a dream.

From here I’m going to try to explain what has happened using mostly data and graphs.  First we’re going to look at the evidence that indeed, upward mobility and the ability to “earn more than dad” are dead.  For the next section here, I’m going to use graphs from

Next, we’ll take a look at the specifics of how that has affected so-called “millennials”:

If we have time, I’ll speculate on the causes and what can be done.

My slides that I’ll use in addition to the graphs in the above links are here.  If this embedded view won’t display in your browser or allow you to download, use this link:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JHK58hHQvQcGeqP3YRnW9dzDIJsz5tWf5vly6z_TfnQ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

Cannot Remain Silent

Bill McBride at Calculated Risk and the New York Times today capture my thoughts:

These are not normal times, and I can’t just post economic data and remain silent on other issues.

Mr. Trump’s executive order is un-American, not Christian, and hopefully unconstitutional. This is a shameful act and no good person can remain silent.

From the NY Times: Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous

The first casualties of this bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy were detained early Saturday at American airports just hours after the executive order, ludicrously titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” went into effect. It must have felt like the worst trick of fate for these refugees to hit the wall of Donald Trump’s political posturing at the very last step of a years long, rigorous vetting process. This ban will also disrupt the lives and careers of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been cleared to live in America under visas or permanent residency permits.

That the order, breathtaking in scope and inflammatory in tone, was issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day spoke of the president’s callousness and indifference to history, to America’s deepest lessons about its own values.

The order lacks any logic. It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11 as a rationale, while exempting the countries of origin of all the hijackers who carried out that plot and also, perhaps not coincidentally, several countries where the Trump family does business. The document does not explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths.

Republicans in Congress who remain quiet or tacitly supportive of the ban should recognize that history will remember them as cowards.