Re: [Fsedu-developers] Getting the show on the road

[Peter Minten]

Stephen Compall wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ian Lynch sent this to me.  Std disclaimer "IMHO" for replies:
> 
> On Sunday 30 March 2003 12:53 pm, ian wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:48, Stephen Compall wrote:
> > > On Sunday 30 March 2003 09:16 am, Peter Minten wrote:
> >
> > A lot of detail about the theory of getting free software into
> > schools (I think ;-) )
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My background is UK education. I was until recently a Registered
> > Inspector with the UK Office for Standards in Education and I'm an
> > assessor for the National Professional Qualification for
> > Headteachers. Just a few observations.
> >
> > 1. The UK has its own exams framework controlled by the Government so
> > it will not be easy to get free software qualifications accepted in
> > schools especially since very few schools work on free software (We
> > have recently installed a 120 station Linux thin client network in a
> > City Learning centre attached to a school and similar in several
> > schools so there are exceptions, but not many yet)

Does that exam control extend unto higher education?
 
> Well, if we have to work on two complemental problems at once (lack of
> FS cert. recognition & few schools using Free Software), so be it.
> It's good to know where we stand, though :]

Three, we have to change our image from irritating bloodsuckers of the IT world
to brave rebels.

> > 2. If you want volume take up you need to lower the barriers to
> > entry. Books and chapters on the philosophy of free software have a
> > place but they are not likely to be read by busy teachers who have
> > other priorities. Content in free software is likely to be more
> > effective.

The chapters are not really meant to be read by busy teachers, I'm thinking more
of bored students :-).

> But when we want volume, we don't just want software volume.  We
> *want* people to take a stand against software owners.  We *want* the
> philosophy of free software (and knowledge, hence the content
> projects) to be one of those priorities of busy teachers.  We aren't
> trying to be an unintrusive force that *doesn't* interrupt these busy
> teachers; quite the opposite, in fact.

Interupting teachers, now that's something I'm good at ;-).

On my school there is an Open Source workgroup that is trying to push OpenOffice
and GNU/Linux into the classrooms. They try to do this un-intrusively, and are
busy for a few years now without any visible effect. Being very nice just
doesn't work, we have to be aggressive otherwise nobody will listen. Compare it
to a political campaign, the mild ones get overseen.

> > 4. Using language such as hacking in the context of school based
> > courses will probably be counter-productive as the word conjures up
> > negative images in the eyes of the administrators who have the power
> > to veto courses.
> 
> We have a lot of negative images to fight anyways, one more
> easily-refuted one won't hurt, IMHO, and will do much good to
> confront.

Yes, I get tired of being looked weird at whenever I use the term Hacker.

> > 5. In the UK at least, starting with generic office type
> > applications is sensible because it involves the largest number of
> > potential users and there is a lot of course material in MS Office
> > so moving a lot easily to OpenOffice.org and hence XML provides a
> > good basis for opening things up.  From this its possible to build
> > programming courses etc. I have some schools already interested in
> > languages translation and programming using free software and the
> > principle of sharing. Donate a brick get a house. There are
> > government initiatives that have attached funding that can make this
> > easier but its quite a complex issue.

This is a really good idea. We could organize programming competitions,
everything under a Free Software license, the winners get certificates.

Greetings,

Peter