Digital Signposts

A 2 Speed YouTube?

image credit: theqspeaks CC Licnece BY_NC_SA

“Opening up a world of educational content with YouTube for Schools”

As a firm advocate of video for learning, I really hope Google’s recently launched YouTube for Schools service will get YouTube into more schools.  Then if those schools were to move from YouTube for Schools to the default open YouTube, that would  be even better.

As expected the initial reactions to the launch of YouTube for  Schools on the  educational blogs and twitter feeds has been welcoming and positive and .... largely.......uncritical.

Google’s  bold statement (above), has obviously struck a chord with lots of educators, despite the fact that the content on YouTube has always been open and available to schools should they wish to access it. There are of course many schools and administrations that have; (misguidedly in my opinion), chosen to block it,  but that is an entirely different matter.

Therefore is Google really opening or providing anything new?  No, what YouTube for Schools does is offer a filter switch by which school IT admins can allow access to the Youtube.com/education subdomain  i.e. YouTube Edu, whilst still allowing the blocking of  open YouTube. The keywords in Gooogles rationale are:  safety and distraction together with  school friendly/teacher friendly and free. Taking these points in order:

• if YouTube is really that dangerous;  why are many schools using it without any significant issues as Daniel Stucke points out in his post?  
• distraction; lots of glib references to cats and music; from both Google and commentators but no analysis of the causes of distraction
• school/teacher friendly is a pretty meaningless term, but could possibly be interpreted as spoon feeding.....having the spadework done for you.... avoiding issues of digital literacy?
• YouTube has always been free ... ‘no brainer’

The YouTube Edu content is sourced from over "600 partners” and indeed there are some excellent videos from the likes of NASA, RSA, Smithsonian and TED. Nevertheless there are also a lot of talking heads and dry lectures.  There is very little evidence of student authored videos or the student voice, instead it is very much a one-way street where video is used to "illustrate."  I think YouTube Edu focuses too heavily on 'subjects' and ‘grades’ rather than the interconnectedness of knowledge or the educational affordances of video. Perhaps it is just my take, but there seems to be a very US centric feel to the service. I have also noted; that many, if not the majority of clips still feature pre-roll and pop-up adverts.

There is of course no shortage of educational video being curated and shared on the web.  A good example is WatchKnow.org; a moderated wiki where and  teachers  recommend, aggregate and curate educational content from a number of video services including YouTube. Another developing service in the UK is EdmediaShare, where educators in HE and FE upload, share and discuss the videos they are using. The emphasis within EdmediaShare is on  how to leverage the pedagogical value of the videos and can be used in different learning contexts as well as subjects using the Dial-e framework developed at the University of Hull.

I am not convinced about new either; YouTube  hosts hundreds or even thousands of  channels and playlists that have educational value. I  would argue that this value is best determined by a community of educators curating and sharing, rather than a committee even if it does include teachers and Google educators. YouTube has become such a powerful educational platform because of its serendipity - the discovery, of new videos and channels, facilitated and promoted through social networks.

Of the 35 hours of video uploaded every minute to YouTube, a significant amount will be extremely current, relevant and topical. YouTube provides instantaneous access to many events of local and global significance as they happen, for example the recent Japan Tsunami, Arab Spring or a local Starling roost  - all good  examples. Teachers should have access to; and be able to decide; if, how, and when to use such videos; and also consider the age group and how to frame them in an appropriate learning context

In my opinion what YouTube should be doing, is helping teachers to understand and use the
excellent creative YouTube tools such as: Playlists, Editing, Captions, Video Manager  and promoting embedding YouTube content in other educational resources, as they do in YouTube for Teachers. Teachers should be encouraged to address the issues of raised by comments and how related videos algorithms work and evaluate their effectiveness. This is all part of developing digital and media literacies. Offering a solution based on 'removing' comments and related videos is pedagogically unsound.

To give Google some credit they have factored in a suggest option for  channels, but here's the rub - it must must be sourced from a YouTube partner! .... rather than selected for its true educational merit.

 

So in the final analysis what we end up with is a digital video library, a walled garden.

whereby a ‘committee’ and Google deems what is educational video, which can then be allocated to teachers on an individual basis by an IT admin. I think this is  a backward step for video for learning. It will will be interesting to watch how this plays out and follow the crossover, both ways,  between YouTube for Schools and Open YouTube. Of course my big worry is that some currently Open YouTube users would move to the YouTube for Schools.

Measuring the Educational Value of Digital Resources

Image (background) credit: Mockney Rebel   CC Licence: BY-NC-2.0

I have been thinking about the value the educational community and learners gain from using digital resources, especially those targeted for educational.  In the visualisation above, I  have extrapolated, which possible  actions or behaviours by educators might be of most benefit for learners, (and other educators). You may wish to suggest others in the comments, or even disagree with the model; I would really welcome your thoughts and feedback on this.

How one can use a resource will be determined by the terms and conditions of the resource's licence.  The example below is typical of  licensing offered by many, (educational), content providers.  

The first two conditions, attribution and non commercial use, are fair, reasonable and make sense,  because they allow modification and remixing; but the last element precludes using the resource at anything other than an individual level, or at best within an institution. Such content may still have a great deal of value for an individual, but it stops there, as it cannot make full use of the educational affordances of digital technologies. Some other resources are even more restrictive; allowing no modifications,  their terms often state they can only be printed or used offline. These will have little or no value within a digital content ecosystem.

Whilst it is understandable that some content providers may wish to protect content they have created or acquired, this should be seen against the exponential growth of openly accessible resources; Wikipedia, YouTube, Science Commons and Encyclopedia of Life are just a some of the many examples. This past year has also seen clear move towards OER, (Open Educational Resources) with many initiatives  at both individual and institutional level. 

A number of potentially significant developments are taking  place, Khan Academy is planning to crowdsource resources created by teachers around the world and invite them  to add content to its portal  and make it available through the Khan Academy’s noncommercial public domain licence.  On another front, Pearson, one of the worlds largest educational content providers will make some of its content available  through an API which will  hopefully be developed as valuable educational materials as discussed  recently by John McLear.

 

Panoramic Video for Learning

 
Screencast  - panning and zooming into 360deg video

Last week the delegates at the Diverse 2011 conference were  treated to a fascinating presentation by Dr Roy Pea, Professor of Education and Learning Sciences at Stanford  University, on using video for classroom observation. Roy described how he used a 360 degree Lucy videocam to develop a model for observing lessons and classroom interactions. The Lucy enables all corners of the class to be filmed simultaneously, together with the surrounding audio; and the DIVER software developed by Roy and his team lets viewers zoom in to, comment and annotate different parts of the video.  This  lets different viewers, including both researchers and trainee teachers, pick up on different events happening in the classroom simultaneously, and from different viewpoints. This method of audio-visual analysis brings together multiple perspectives resulting in a multilayered and multidimensional narratives.

Indeed, these video research techniques could be applied to other situations outside the classroom, a good situation might be an art gallery or museum, where the system could record data on visitors strategies and engagement with exhibits and resources. Of course filming in public spaces, and classroooms, raises ethical issues; and to be effective, needs to be consensual and offer privacy safeguards.

Roy also introduced the audience to  Dot, a panoramic camera lens for the iPhone 4, which  is due to launch and retail at around $99. This looks awesome, and makes 360 degree video capture avaialable at a consumer price point.  As you can see in the screencast above, I have been having a play with one of the video examples from the Kogeto site.  I think it really works with movement as you can follow and zoom in or out on the overtaking cars, or turn back to see something you have passed.  Because every viewing is a different experience, learners can draw their own meaning from a video sequence. Combining movement with multiple viewpoints offers remarkable opportunities for sport and travel based videos. Whether filming a walk through a neigbourhood, recording environmental spaces such as a wood, or simply placing the camera on a table during a conversation; the Dot is sure to offer opportunities for creating innovative video for learning.

 

 

Domesday Reloaded (Part 2)

Domesday System by ljw Licence CC  BY-NC-SA

Riding on the wave of excitement generated through BBC Domesday Reloaded project makes this a good time to take an objective look at some of the wider issues arising out of Domesday for learning technology, and if possible learn some lessons for the future.

“In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part…”

This an interesting statement, because it was never realised through the original project format; but now may be with the release of the Reloaded project, and even more so if the data on the National Disc is finally released. Unless folk were associated with a school or had access at a library it is unlikely they would have had  hands-on experience of the Domesday system.

Many blogs and tweets suggest that Domesday Reloaded is a complete reconstruction of the original 1984-86 project, but that is quite far from the truth. It does not contain any of the rich data from the National Disc. The National Disc contains a great deal of, (authoritative), media and statistics. Just how much can be gauged in the first  section of this promotional video,  specifically from 03:15 > 9:32, on the timeline. It is clear that the Community disc data is culturally significant and  the National data disc completes that anecdotal snapshot of the UK picture with an even and focused coverage.

Neither is it true to suggest that the only reason for the loss of the Domesday data is obsolescent technology. Human shortcomings are just as much, if not more to blame. Although obsolescent technology may have contributed to the the loss of the Domesday system, it was not the only cause. This is evidenced by the fact that researchers based at Leeds University and the University of Michigan working on the Camileon Project were successful in accessing and emulating the BBC's Domesday project on a PC.

Although the systems were superseded by digital optical media, many of the surviving systems, (c.1000 sold), were just left in cupboards or as I heard through trusted anecdotal evidence - in one LEA (Local Education Authority), 2 were simply thrown in the skip when moving offices. Again the human factor... one wonders how many times this was replicated?

Evidence, from Charlesworth. University of Hull, (2002); suggests that the greatest obstacle was clearing Copyright. Nearly all the content, including both data and software has IP rights attached. It appears to be an extremely complex web of rights. Charlesworth’s report also indicates, even at the time of writing (2002),  some rights holders were untraceable and it could be 2090 before all data would be in the public domain.

Should ever such a venture be undertaken in the future (using public funds and contributions) it would make sense to ensure that content providers and contributors were asked to make their work available under a Creative Commons licence, or at least the BBC Creative Archive Licence.  Unfortunately this is not a requirement of the Reloaded initiative and there is no real licencing guidance for contributors other than the BBC’s normal T&Cs. (Even so, everyone should contribute because of the cultural significance of the project).  Similarly it would be hoped any future venture would be developed using Open Source software.

In addition to the  Domesday Reloaded will achieve is to generate awareness and of Domesday, (including the original Domesday Book, which is also online), judging by blog post and tweets this is already happening.  In order to fully appreciate the nature of the BBC Domesday Project it is worth reading this detailed description of Domesday and also the work of  Darlington, Finney and Pearce describing the recovery of the data on the discs. Sadly; Adrian Pearce died in 2008 and his original site is no longer available but the http://www.domesday1986.com/ URL now links to the Domesday Special Interest Group.

Update
There are indications from the Centre for Computing History that they are working with the National Disc and hoping to make it live in the near future. Great news if it happens.

 

If there are any factual errors in this post please let me know and I will amend as appropriate.

 

Domesday Reloaded (Part 1)

George Auckland by Rain Rabitt  Licence  CC- BY-NC

Firstly,  I think we should all congratulate George Auckland  and his team for breathing new life into the 1984-86 Domesday Project. I have met George several times and have been privileged to hear him to speak at conferences, and have never failed to be moved by his knowledge, modesty and vision. George can now add Domesday Reloaded to his significant achievements.  Domesday Reloaded is a “full extraction of the community disc  - This is the material which has been published online as the centrepiece of the BBC “Domesday Reloaded website.”

The significance of the original BBC Domesday Project should not be underestimated in the history of audio visual learning. Undertaken in 1984 and first published in 1986, Its mission was to capture a snapshot of life in the UK by combining geographical information with cultural media, data and statistics. In some ways this can be seen as a forerunner of today's crowd-sourced interactive media. A collaborative venture between the BBC, schools and the general public, two laser-vision data discs contained over 80,000 images, OS Maps and professional video footage. Its scope can be gathered from this detailed promotional video.  Unfortunately the combination of the high cost of hardware and its technical complexity meant it was never able to fulfill its true educational potential. It is not surprising that many of those concepts would re-emerge later, facilitated by Internet based platforms.

My initial reaction was excitement and elation, the first thing I did was to look where I grew up and read the comments, most from schoolchildren, some I knew. Judging by the Twitter stream resulting from a search on “Domesday.”  I was not alone. “Memories” is the recurring theme, and the stream is littered with anecdotes of personal involvement or recollections of a place.  Very interestingly quite a few folks suggest that Domesday extended their vision of the possibilities of IT, especially in relation to learning.

At the time I was a, (young), ICT advisor with Bradford LA and privileged to be able to run a Domesday project with  local schools who would “borrow” one of our systems for a month, (we had both the BBC Master and RM PC186 driven players). The schools set up projects using the kit and evaluated their potential through teacher feedback and students work. Sadly it is unlikely any of that still exists.

Following the live Twitterstream, as I write this; I am amazed by the number of tweeters who have identified, and are already sharing their original contributions the project. A  thread running through the tweets is an unbridled craving for this type of resource. It will be interesting to watch, over the coming months, how this project brings people together.

Domesday Reloaded once again offers great opportunities learning and I am sure schools throughout the land will already be planning projects based on Domesday.
Children (and adults), can engage once again engage with the country we live in and compare our lives  then and now through contributing to the site.

It is pleasing to hear that future of the original community content, plus the updated site  will be assured by the National Archive as stated in this BBC news item

“The revised Domesday archive will finally be closed to new contributions in November, at which time it will be handed over to The National Archives Future generations will be able to access this unique snapshot of life in Britain online for as long as the Internet keeps working.

Part 2, will look at the wider implications of Domesday.

 

Don't worry about the commitee...

Image (remix) Credit: occ4m  CC Licence 

A recent post by Neil Winton highlights the issues of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) in digital resources created by teachers. Neil's post also prepares the ground for a debate on the opportunities digital resources offer teaching and learning, something I will cover in more detail in the following post. Although Neil's post referred primarily to QA of resources and their suitability for inclusion in glow, the subtext and comments discussed the 'ownership'  of the resources, and the complexities around the issues of a teachers' own time and any monetary value.

Accepting the probability that such IPR clauses may be written into, (many), teacher contracts, and that legally, resources created by teachers are the property of their employer e.g. Local Authority (LA) or school,  it now seems high time that all parties get together to openly discuss the IPR/employer issues in the context of Web 2.0 and user generated content in order to arrive at a workable solution.

It is highly improbable that the likes of; Flickr, You Tube, social networks and digital publishing tools were considered, or even around, when IPR clauses were written into teacher contracts. More likely, they were drawn up around a scenario of teachers writing textbooks or publishing collections of worksheets.

Ewan notes in the comments, teacher publishing is not yet mainstream,  I suspect this will remain the case, certainly for writing books.  As Ewan suggest those teachers might consider setting up a, (self employed), business to do this, or they could be up-front and negotiate  an agreement with their employer. On the other hand Web 2.0 offers teachers, who would not normally consider writing a book, the opportunity to create and publish digital resources and indeed make themselves known and establish a presence within educational communities. Indeed many are already doing so. This point is particularly well illustrated by the excellent collaborative sideshow below, (one of many), from Tom Barrett,  which demonstrates the possibilities and opportunities for teachers to become involved and why the old terms of reference are no longer applicable.

Collaborative Google doc Presentation resource created and developed Tom Barrett, contributed to by many under a Creative commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 License. If you would like to contribute to this resource, please contact Tom

This kind of resource does not need committee approval; applying a Creative Commons Non Commercial Share Alike license will prevent any employer claiming exclusive IPR; but they would be entitled to adapt, share and add their name to the credits and gain attribution. I believe this might be of greater value to them than the monetary value, if any, of the resource. Alternatively, they could choose to ban such content in schools or lessons, but that does not seem very wise, and I really cannot see many be willing to go down this route.

In conclusion I would argue teachers don't need to be too worried when creating digital resources. LAs are not really, (or if they are - should not be), in the business of acting as agents for resources, teacher developed or otherwise. Instead they should be encouraging teachers to participate in developing new resources, and realise they would benefit by association. Where LAs and official bodies might also offer support is in facilitating CPD and other initiatives that  help teachers who wish to create and share materials, work together and avoid the pitfalls of using third party copyright materials in their resources.

I think it is unlikely LAs would be willing to pursue IPR claims on teacher generated materials through the courts, (it costs a lot of money, more than they would ever make be likely to recoup selling the resources), and such a move would certainly raise eyebrows amongst council tax payers.

So hopefully there will be a move towards official support and encouragement for teachers leading the way in developing learning materials. They certainly should not have to worry about some committee or legal dept.

Let's forget about the 21st Century

The 21st century meme has been appearing regularly throughout the edublogosphere. John Connell has posted some excellent contributions to the conversation on 21st century skills and 'literacies' here and here, whilst  Doug Belshaw has been developing  his thesis on the concepts. I highly recommend subscribing to their blogs.

The first thing that strikes me is that the 21st century is a very long time, certainly in a technological context if not an evolutionary one. If you consider the technological developments in the 20th century, never mind the 21st, It seems ridiculous to offer predictions for more than next 5-10 years.

I am convinced that our obsession with 21st century is holding back the debate on skill and literacies. It sets up an artificial construct between the traditional and the emergent. As John Connell says:

"I just don’t understand the mindset,... ...that assumes that, the moment you start to promote one idea, all other ideas are to be demoted or discarded. I see it so often today. We must be free to isolate an aspect of education so that we can discuss it in detail without everyone falling into the trap of believing we are advocating that aspect to the exclusion of all others."

It is unlikely that great innovators of the 20th century were concerned about  creating something for the "20th century" It seems more likely that  extreme dedication to work in their respective fields, is more probable.

Secondly, it may be impossible to completely disentangle the shifting elements that make up the skills and literacies we currently need, because some are cognitive and others functional. I am sure some will make a good stab at this, but I think this is probably the province of an academic paper.

As Doug suggests, we need a new term, and he's still looking. By far, the best I have come across recently , was from Prof. Sue Thomas at a  recent conference at DeMontfort University: "transliteracy" - to be literate across the literacies - this definition probably allows us a bit more breathing space in our definitions, because it allows for the multi-layered capabilities we need to develop, in order to derive real benefit from technology. 

"The ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks."

What is important is to distinguish cognitive from functional or practical skills, (whether those are an using interactive whiteboard or cursive handwriting).  The need and relevance of these can change quickly and dramatically.

Having said that I feel it is completely wrong to dismiss the discussion on 21st Century skills as a "fad", using that reasoning one might as well say  same about the internet. It is a fallacy  to say that nothing has changed, (even in this century), and that we can operate using the same models.  A good example is video; it is only 6 years since Becta launched the first Digital Video project for schools. It was no coincidence that this happened at the time when the kit first became practical and affordable in schools, unfortunately there was, at the time no real outlet for the work produced, and the real benefits never saw the light of day. All that has changed, the tools are low cost, easy to use and widespread. So now more than ever we need to consider the visual literacies such as the language of film, visual grammar,  etc otherwise we will have kids not grasping the potential " as Dai Barnes noted in his blog:

"They know they can upload stuff but not many of them actually do. In fact, very few of them have actually signed up for an account to subscribe to their favourites or connect to friends. The way they communicate videos with each other (have you seen this? bare funny!)"

The technologies have changed the way we operate, the way we learn, or could learn. We can learn from each other in a technologically enhanced way and  as Steve Wheeler points out

"You and I no longer need to occupy the same location to converse. We can use text, audio or video in a number of modes and through a mind dazzling range of technologies. And there is a record - an archive - of our conversation if we want one."

On a technological timescale writing, appeared quite recently, and printing with the attendant mass publishing and increased literacy, only a few moments ago. I agree with John that it is unlikely text will disappear completely, but its presentation, use and context may change significantly.

The technologies are there, the conversations are global and instantaneous, so lets use them and not worry too much about which century we are in.

 Image by Graham Wegner with this CC licence

Working Alone

image credit Fudj CC Licence Flickr

Whilst evaluating the Becta Teaching and Learning with DV assets project a few years ago, I  needed to 'contact' teachers during school time, as it turned out, a nigh impossible task. (It would have been easier to get an audience with Her Majesty, The Queen). Ever since then I have  periodically reflected on the implications of teachers working in isolation, so I was very interested to read this recent post by Wesley Fryer.

"Isolation is a bad thing. That is why some adults make kids go sit in the corner by themselves, and criminals are sometimes punished with solitary confinement. As human beings, we are wired to be social and be connected. Certainly there are important times and places for DISCONNECTING, but in general most people are happier and more productive when they are safely CONNECTED with each other."

So, (why) do teachers  work alone? Is it through choice or by design?  Perhaps a bit of both, a hangover from a 19th (20th) century transmissive model of learning, that takes place in closed spaces, which dictate the pedagogy; offering, (until very recently), little or no means of communication with; peers, the class next door  or the outside world.
Simultaneously, the discrete nature of ‘subjects’ allied with the, (perfectly justifiable), pride in being an acknowledged expert' in a subject or field, may encourage teachers to see themselves as independent and self reliant.  Nothing wrong with that of course.

Finally, and most importantly, the expectations of the diverse stakeholders in the education system,  that include government, its curriculum and testing, together with parents and employers in turn influenced by media perceptions and representations of education and learning, will exert pressures to maintain the status quo.

In our current culture, a teacher is usually perceived as an individual on whose head the educational well being of our students ultimately rests. We hear a great deal about good teachers and bad teachers, but very little analysis or debate about how they can effectively work together, perhaps helping transform from bad to good.  When we do make value judgments about good teachers, as Steven Downes recently pointed out  it is unlikely to be about the "content"  delivered, (or subject), but their "presence."  And one would imagine, and hope, that good teachers will have as much 'presence' in a collaborative working environment.

Whatever the reality, I strongly maintain that teacher isolation is a much greater obstacle to 21st century learning than any perceived digital divide; whether that of access to technology or the digital - immigrants v natives concept, (which is becoming rapidly discredited).

As new tools and applications are brought in to the classroom, some, such as interactive whiteboards, digital content and learning platforms will probably probably do relatively little to change the transmissive model of learning. But other tools which are being used by a growing number of teachers, inevitably extend beyond compartments, these are the social and collaborative tools such as Twitter, blogs  and wikis. Teachers are using these to discuss good practice, establish learning networks share ideas and resources, whilst making new professional friends. I would maintain that, any one of the teachers I follow on Twitter is painting a learning landscape that extends way beyond traditional paradigms. And this is not because of the tools themselves, but because of the  connections enabled by the tools. It is through these connections teachers can make their presence felt. The potential of this is thoughtfully highlighted by Martin Weller in a recent post.

Perhaps then, the systems, structures and cultures that keep us compartmentalised, physically and pedagogically, may now find it just that bit more difficult to maintain their walls. As teachers start to become less isolated, then it will be possible engage with the difficult part of educational transformation as suggested by Chris Lehmann.

So, whilst there there is plenty of information on digital tools, educational technologies and Web 2.0; much of the discussion is still centered on a class based; one teacher; discrete subject model. My question would be: for how much longer can/should a teacher remain working in isolation?

Digital Trompe-l'œil

Ironically, because the Guardian 'Special' on Building Schools of The Future  was not available online, Ian Usher used Issuu to create this superb online document from pdfs. In doing so Ian has done what the Guardian failed to do; offer the information online in a form that is aesthetically pleasing,

Using a digital camera and taking no more than a few minutes to photograph the newspaper, and upload the images; Ian has created a very tactile experience.  I think  there is something very reassuring and satisfying about turning these creased pages.

So here we have it, a simple creative process that is crying out for children and teachers to use, and achieve some wonderful, (and as yet unforeseen), results.

Not forgetting of course that Ian's article firmly hits the nail on the head with regard to the issues of BSF (Building Schools for The Future) and LPs (Learning Platforms).

Catering; for whom?

image credit Larimdame

I read with interest, the other day, that some high profile companies, namely: McDonalds; FlyBe and Network Rail have been accredited to offer  'qualifications' that support A Levels or diplomas.  Whilst I think we can rest assured these companies have good training schemes for their employees, or new recruits; a training scheme is not the same as an opportunity to study. I would also like to know:

• Who are the main beneficiaries of the 'qualification'; the company, or the student's life chances.
• Will the skills on offer really be transferable? Either to a competing business or to other jobs. How many would want McDonalds 'written' on their certificates?
• Some of McDonalds other dubious educational ventures.
  
• Network Rail's poor track record.
• What was the process that approved these companies to become qualification awarding bodies?  Was there a tender or bidding process?  Was this debated/announced publicly, or a deal done behind closed doors?
  
• What about small enterprises and innovators, could they become part of this initiative?

No matter how you dress it up; when commercial companies are allowed to award qualifications; by default they will serve their own interests first, which is likely to be (and arguably rightly), making a profit. And lets not forget, even big companies are at the mercy of market forces.

Now if companies and organisations such as Google, Lucasfilms or the BBC, were involved would that change how we view such schemes? Or is it time to seriously consider removing the running of education from both government and business,  sure they can fund and advise, but lets have a body whose commitment is firmly based on learning and providing real educational opportunities for all, not serving political masters or specific  business interests.