The Argument For F/OSS In Schools

pfaffman sends us word of a two-part article in LinuxInsider that lays out to an audience of non-tech educators a cogent argument for using F/OSS in schools. The piece was written by a University of Tennessee professor for the education journal TechTrends. It makes the case that proprietary software is inconvenient and that when schools choose to use proprietary products they spend their constituents' money. The article won't contain a whole lot of surprises for Linux initiates (save perhaps some software recommendations for educational use), but it's interesting to see these ideas presented so clearly to a wider, and influential, audience."

Comments

True.... but not important

[jmorris42]

> Yeah but when you get into the real world you have to use microsoft products anyway.

As addressed in the article, had you bothered to RTFA, it doesn't matter. If you teach word processing instead of Word that is. And you had better be doing that because the version of Word you are teaching on (likely to be a version or two behind already) will almost certainly be obsolete by the times the kiddies enter the labor force. Software changes, see the Ribbon if you don't believe me. "Gotta teach what everyone else uses" is just a crutch to avoid change. By that logic everyone would still be using Word Perfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase.

No, the problem I hit is 'must have' software that has to have Windows. From the crappy Reader Rabbit level stuff in the lower grades to Accelerated Reader in the later ones to state mandated testing software that only works in IE on Windows, etc.

Even worse the schools here love to spend money on crap. Why would anyone spend for PC Anywhere when VNC is free and works? But they do. And yea, they get the licenses really cheap but new Netware servers everywhere? Yup. Supposedly it is some dependency on a mandated package somewhere.

Still no reason not to try infecting as many schools as we can with Free stuff that runs on Windows. Eventaully we might get a few of em adopted.

Re:True.... but not important

[bobdickgus]

Yeah much better to teach spreadsheets rather than excel(whatever version), better to understand concepts rather than specific implementations. Once you understand the ideas behind it all you can easily learn a different programs interface.

Re:True.... but not important

[Jawbreaker4Fs]

The problem with this ideology is that most people aren't tech-savvy enough to learn the principles of a piece of software and adapt to different vendors. They become locked into a platform simply because they know how to find certain functionalities within the environment they're used to. Think about Word for example.. the typical user could find it significantly difficult to find the different way to add a footnote in OO.org if they're only familiar with Word, and vice versa. Additionally, because the Microsoft Office suite is so widespread, there are likely to be more people around to help figure things out on that particular platform than a F/OSS alternative.

Of course, after seeing Word 2007.. I believe they should stick to a legacy Microsoft Office suite, or get OO.org. The interface is absolutely ridiculous.

Re:True.... but not important

[Dunbal]

better to understand concepts rather than specific implementations.

      From what I remember of grade school this is something applied to all subjects, not just computer science. The teachers who actually try and get students to think about the stuff they're learning rather than memorize by rote is sadly very disappointing. Teaching a step by step "click here then there then do this then do that" fits the mold much better when you want to breed worker drones.

Re:True.... but not important

[Digicrat]

Teaching the concepts of a spreadsheet or word processing program in general is much more important. However, practically speaking, schools will teach for the specific product (MS or otherwise) that they have, and a non-trivial portion of the users will then get lost when exposed to an alternate, but entirely equivalent, application. It is sad the number of people I can identify that will get lost if you rearrange the icons, let alone the slight differences of, as a basic example "Bookmarks" versus "favorites."

For schools computer curriculum to be truly educational, they should at least attempt to teach the general concepts, with examples (even if just in screen shots) on how common features are designed to work logically, even if the mnemonics or icons of the commands might vary between implementations. There is a big difference between saying "to undo your last action, press Edit (see screenshot) and then 'undo' [more screenshots]" and "the option to undo your last action is a type of editing command, and therefore can be found on the menu titled 'Edit'." This is obvious to /.'ers, but this is a leap of logic that many average users do not necessarily make.

As the old saying goes, "show a person where to click and they've done one task, teach a person why to click there and they might not ask you next time a similar task is required."

Re:True.... but not important

[Doctor Memory]

The problem with this ideology is that most people aren't tech-savvy enough to learn the principles of a piece of software and adapt to different vendors. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I haven't found this to be true. Most of the secretaries/PAs/front-office staff I've worked with have always been focused on Getting The Job Done, and they really couldn't care less about what tool they use, as long as it works and doesn't make them jump through hoops. My first job was with a non-profit, and we had a random collection of software that was either donated or purchased for evaluation. So while the standard WP was DisplayWrite (yes, this was shortly after fire was discovered), we had one machine with Word, three with WordPerfect, and all of our regional offices had Kaypro CP/M machines with WordStar. And all the office staff knew how to get their jobs done with each one of them. Of course, we didn't use a lot of the more involved functions (anything beyond a ToC was pretty 1337), but everybody knew how to set margins and format a table and set their justification and everything else they needed to do their job.

Most office-type software has enough help features (tooltips, F1 for context-sensitive help, help menus) that anyone who knows what functions should be present shouldn't have much trouble figuring out how to make any program do what they want. The problem is people who don't really think about what they want, they "just always do File->Fold->Mangle->Masticate and it does it".

school discounts do have a "price"

[wizardforce]

Proprietary software at educational pricing is, in most cases, dirt cheap. Almost every single software company I know provides software to schools at a significant discount.

from TFA:

Training teachers and students to use a piece of software makes that software more valuable. Vendors know this. Business sense, not altruism, is what drives deep discounts on software for education. I once spoke to a vendor of an online grade book who, upon learning that I train teachers, was very interested in my using it in my classes. "What does it cost?" I asked. "It will cost you nothing. You can use it for free for as long as you like." "And once I addict my students to your software," I asked pointedly, afraid that I was being rude, "what will it cost them?" The vendor became excited. "That's exactly what we were talking about in our last sales Free White Paper - What Retailers Should Know about M-Commerce meeting!"

In Short Because it is the norm in most schools, businesses and homes, many of the costs of proprietary software are difficult to see. There are now alternatives to the most commonly used applications in schools. When these open source alternatives are nearly equal to -- or better than -- their proprietary competitors, the significant advantages of F/OSS make them the better choice.

the scools can get FOSS for free and MS software for cheap but later when students want to/need to use the software their school uses they end up paying for MS. at least with FOSS they wont need to spend their already limited student cash on MS software. Lastly, this isnt just limited to K-12, in college, office software is very important to have, for homework, projects, research etc. so any cost savings is greatly appreciated.

It's hard to break through non free propaganda.

[twitter]

The following is a typical frustration for free software advocates:

Recently I gave a conference presentation about the benefits of F/OSS for educators -- how all teachers and students could use these tools and that they were free and would remain so. I distributed copies of TheOpenCD and talked about the F/OSS programs that it includes. Near the end of the hour-long presentation, a participant raised her hand and asked, "So I can use this software for free?" Even after an hour, F/OSS still did not quite make sense to her.

Every other source of information teachers have is full of non free propaganda. Don't copy that floppy (flash warning) is an annoying classic. The basic tenants were laid out by Bill Gates in his famous 1976 whine which says, "if you don't pay me, your computer won't work". Broadcasters and publishers justify their existence with a similar but more realistic story that reinforces the software lie. The lie is reinforced with confusing language, bogus arguments and, ultimately, name calling. The tactics are covered in detail here. Microsoft spends a billion dollars a month on marketing and each piece of that marketing conveys their propaganda.

It's very effective and can only be eliminated by free software use. The idea that software can be shared and improved is so completely foreign to them, so much that you can perform almost any demonstration with free software and they still won't understand, as evidenced above. It's only after they use free software, like Mozilla, that they can see that it is not only good enough, it's what they want and that's what free software is all about. At that point, the rest of the lies start falling down and they get very angry.

Re:It's hard to break through non free propaganda.

[Dunbal]

Broadcasters and publishers justify their existence with a similar but more realistic story that reinforces the software lie.

      Of course they do. They are middlemen trying to protect their (obsolete) position. What does a publisher add to a product, besides mark-up? 20 years ago they could claim "distribution", but now, they add NOTHING. Anything that can be translated to an electronic format can be sent anywhere in the world. And they can't even claim bandwidth costs - bittorrent has proven that the masses will help with the distribution if there's demand for the content.

      Publishers - of books, software and music (which are extremely well suited for "electronification") are now parasites.I'd much rather pay the creator $1 a copy and get the electronic version than pay the publisher $5 for a DRM infested piece of crap that likely as not won't work with some of my equipment. I bet the creator ain't getting a 20% cut anyway. More like 5 - 10% if lucky.

You missed the point

[cecil_turtle]

From the header of the first article, had you bothered to read it:

Free software gives everyone the freedom to run, study, change and redistribute software. It is these freedoms, not the price, that is important about free software. Free software advocates make the distinction between free, as in speech, as opposed to free, as in beer. Though many people would gladly accept a free beer, it is not one of the fundamental principles of democracy.

The article doesn't even make the argument about cost to the schools. It does make another point about the cost of F/OSS vs. proprietary software however (one I hadn't considered):

I once spoke to a vendor of an online grade book who, upon learning that I train teachers, was very interested in my using it in my classes.

"What does it cost?" I asked.
"It will cost you nothing. You can use it for free for as long as you like."
"And once I addict my students to your software," I asked pointedly, afraid that I was being rude, "what will it cost them?"
The vendor became excited. "That's exactly what we were talking about in our last sales Free White Paper - What Retailers Should Know about M-Commerce meeting!"

When technology leaders train teachers and students to use proprietary software, it obligates those teachers and students to buy or steal that software or to have wasted their time on the training.

It made another 8 or 10 points that were not at all cost related. So overall, it was a good article. You should read it sometime.

Very weak arguments

[fitten]

I read both links... here is my take on what was published:

Myth: You get what you pay for.

Author does not assume the cost of IT/training actually costs time or money and implies that neither are necessary. Most schools don't have IT staff or the money to hire IT staff (particularly qualified staff in something other than Windows... Unix/Linux administrators typically are hired at higher salaries. One option is that the school may get volunteers from either the higher level grades or from parents/supporters, though.

Myth: F/OSS software is created by amateurs and must be inferior.

This passage sounds very whingy. It then uses examples of one similar group (amateur astronomists) but then uses musician/art and then a genius (obviously an exception, not the rule). Instead of touting the strengths such as professional programmers who contribute in their spare time, college students who work on projects because they are eager, etc.

Myth: With F/OSS I cannot get support.

The only option the author gives is to go talk to someone else in your building who, if they have a different version than you, can upgrade your software to the latest version without cost. What about drivers? What about any number of other issues like bugs? What about turning to forums, actually buying support, newgroups, mailing lists, etc?

Myth: Moving to F/OSS will require retraining and relearning.

So... you've nailed down Office.... what about the host of other applications that people use? Like Photoshop, etc.? What about switching from IIS to Apache? MSSQL/MSDE to MySQL? Exchange to whatever (plain email?) Windows point-n-clicky to something different (point-n-clicky with some side helpings of editing text configuration files)? Drive mapping to NFS?

Myth: Students need to learn the standard applications.

Again, you nail word processors and spreadsheets... what about everything else?

Educators Pay for Software - Twice

Author mentions that the first round is given to the school like the first taste of a drug... Then they buy it for home use... where is the second buy?

Training Teachers on Tools They Do Not Have

Finally a reasonable paragraph.

On the Allure of Free Proprietary Tools

FUD. Companies that tend to offer free trial offers don't back out on that in anything other than extreme circumstances (being bought by another company that changes licensing agreements) and even then, it is very rare. This section is pure FUD.

Productivity Applications, Internet Applications, Content-Specific Applications, Server-Based Applications

Finally... some concrete and founded sections but mostly it's just listing alternative software.

Re:Not cost related?

[cecil_turtle]

You're point was about cost to the schools, my point was that the article didn't talk about cost to the schools, the only costs it mentioned were secondary costs which were things I hadn't considered and I felt went outside of the normal OSS vs. Proprietary cost argument that you focused on.

I don't work in education, but I'm disappointed that "do we need this" and "what does it cost" are the only concerns to administrators. You even mentioned "should be selected based on ONE criteria: suitability of purpose" - which I feel is narrow minded and was hoping that you would consider the other points as useful arguments as well if you're the person making recommendations.

"Yes, if you want to teach a class on Photoshop, you obligate the students, and the SCHOOL to buy Photoshop" - the secondary ramifications go even beyond that. Now the students only know and are only comfortable with Photoshop. Now they'll recommend it's use when they go out to work in the real world. They'll even fight the idea of using something different, for some dumb reason like "I know all the keyboard shortcuts". It becomes a vicious cycle - that proprietary software vendors want - that FOSS can help break. Teach the students to use Open Office / AbiWord / Gnumeric / Koffice / Google Docs depending if they're on Windows / Linux / web based and they'll learn to be adaptable and look for all possible solutions and blah blah blah I don't want to repeat the article. Again I just thought it made good points, glad to hear it warmed your heart - now go out and use those points with the decision makers.

That's not true.

[twitter]

In reality, the software will very likely require the same amount of support as other software (which many times Adobe or MS will give gratis or close to gratis). In any case, sysadmins and tech support people cost more than software

What ever gave you that idea? Non free software cost more in every way. The hardware is always more expensive and you have to replace it more often. It always takes more time to keep up, so you get less for the money spent on staff. Staff that's not busy with the patch time of the month, rolling out "upgrades" and fighting virus infections have time to work on tools the school actually wants. Finally, licensing costs are an issue no matter how "good" a deal you get. All of the issues you mention, easy roll out, fewer "upgrades", and local spending are cost and convenience issues in free software's favor. It's hard to imagine free software will ever be as expensive and inconvenient as non free software and experience is making the case clear.

Re:Couldn't get Ubuntu 7.04 to work so well...

[symbolset]

Isn't it nice that your GNU/Linux support team doesn't just wait for your emails, but rather services your call tickets on every random blog on the internet where you happen to leave them?

The real truth of costs in schools

[symbolset]

Proprietary software at educational pricing is, in most cases, dirt cheap

Hell, the first few hits are free! When you're hurtin' for more, come back and we'll take care of you real good.

Try and think ahead. You're supposed to be responsible for teaching small humans to do that. Set a good example.

Re:Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as we all know, your experience is universal.