Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Restoring American Exceptionalism
Last night I went to "Restoring American Exceptionalism" at the Douglas County Events Center. It was an event of the National School Choice Week.
I went to see who would speak, and what main themes they would work. I wish I'd poked a little more into who was bankrolling all this.
Although I arrived a little too late to hear the first introduction, I believe it was Steve Kelly, KNUS Radio host. He said several interesting things: "We've lost something, folks, and need to restore it." What that was, he didn't say.
He mentioned "Americans for Prosperity," a group with links to the Koch brothers. He said that his own kids went to public school, "but this isn't about my kids." Why is it, I wonder, that people feel they need to force choices they themselves don't want?
The big themes: first, competition is good. If he shops at Walmart and finds bad apples, he goes to ANOTHER Walmart. (This is competition?)
Second: when he asked five different groups (how selected he did not say) of parents, kids, teachers, administrators and elected officials what was wrong with schools, they all blamed teacher unions. Although no evidence was cited for that conclusion (the state of the schools), either.
Then Professor Hugh Hewitt, author of a hagiography of Mitt Romney talked about how the worst school in America was the unified school district of Los Angeles, and the school near it, Compton, was worse than a prison. He praised parochial schools, which he attended as a child in the 60s, and how they were affordable to ordinary families ($300 a year back then). He praised the tuition tax credit of Arizona, and the Great Hearts Arizona charter school. "Unless and until teacher unions are broken," he said, "we will have Compton replicating, not Great Hearts." Question: are Arizona students now acknowledged as the highest achieving in the United States? (No. But see this state by state comparison by the US Chamber of Commerce.)
There was some meandering discussion about funding. According to State Senator Keith King who spoke the night before (don't know to whom), Colorado offers $11,000 per student (combined state and local aid). With an average class size of 25 (it's higher than that in Douglas County!) that's $275K per K-12 class. Where does the money go? No answer - but I guess we're supposed to think there's something suspicious about it.
Bob Schaffer, chairman of the state board of education, and former legislator, then spoke at length. Pronouncing school choice "the most important public policy topic in the United States," he began by referring to the Founders' belief that "we won't last long if we don't have an educated populace."
He then cited Milt Friedman's cost and quality matrix. The idea seems to be that the only time you care about cost and quality is when you're spending your own money on yourself. He touched on the 1994 charter school act, then alleged that the performance record of charter schools is "quite good."
But in fact, it's about the same as the performance of regular public schools (see this report), which seems to me to disprove in one go both the premise that school choice is a panacea, or that unions are the key factor in preventing educational achievement or improvement.)
He got applause when he said that "Parents bear the first responsibility for education."
Then he said, "If you trust government workers outside your own family, I guarantee your children will not be successful."
That's the kind of astonishing statement I go to these meetings to hear. So, all (union) teachers fail? No one who has gone to public school can be successful? Really? The statement is both false and absurd.
It was announced that there were 1200 people in the audience, which seemed about right. The show was also broadcast to Michigan, Nebraska, California, and Wyoming.
Dan Gerken (Douglas County School Board member) spoke briefly about the voucher experiment, and announced that he thought an appeal would be heard this April, and he expected a Supreme Court decision by the end of next year.
Dick Morris spoke. He used to be a strategist for Bill Clinton (where he advocated for pushing bad teachers out of schools, but he said that strategy didn't work). He was behind "No child left behind," but he said that didn't work, either. So we need competition. And that will work because... ?
To sum up: I wasn't impressed. Charter school data, in which we have lots of schools that waived union contracts, pretty clearly prove that teacher unions aren't the problem. In fact, it would be refreshing to hear a nice, succinct description of just what problem this group IS trying to solve.
And here's something else worth considering. Being "happy" with your choices is NOT the same thing as making good ones (in the domain of either cost OR quality). Educational accomplishment isn't about reinforcing the values of your parents; it's about demonstrable mastery and application of content. And there just isn't much evidence here that "choice" by itself results in that.
On the other hand, every chair had a free, pretty spiffy canary yellow scarf on it. It has "National School Choice Week" stitched into one end. It is 100% polyester fleece, made in China, and was wonderfully warm around my neck as I walked home. I don't know who paid for it, but I'm grateful.
I went to see who would speak, and what main themes they would work. I wish I'd poked a little more into who was bankrolling all this.
Although I arrived a little too late to hear the first introduction, I believe it was Steve Kelly, KNUS Radio host. He said several interesting things: "We've lost something, folks, and need to restore it." What that was, he didn't say.
He mentioned "Americans for Prosperity," a group with links to the Koch brothers. He said that his own kids went to public school, "but this isn't about my kids." Why is it, I wonder, that people feel they need to force choices they themselves don't want?
The big themes: first, competition is good. If he shops at Walmart and finds bad apples, he goes to ANOTHER Walmart. (This is competition?)
Second: when he asked five different groups (how selected he did not say) of parents, kids, teachers, administrators and elected officials what was wrong with schools, they all blamed teacher unions. Although no evidence was cited for that conclusion (the state of the schools), either.
Then Professor Hugh Hewitt, author of a hagiography of Mitt Romney talked about how the worst school in America was the unified school district of Los Angeles, and the school near it, Compton, was worse than a prison. He praised parochial schools, which he attended as a child in the 60s, and how they were affordable to ordinary families ($300 a year back then). He praised the tuition tax credit of Arizona, and the Great Hearts Arizona charter school. "Unless and until teacher unions are broken," he said, "we will have Compton replicating, not Great Hearts." Question: are Arizona students now acknowledged as the highest achieving in the United States? (No. But see this state by state comparison by the US Chamber of Commerce.)
There was some meandering discussion about funding. According to State Senator Keith King who spoke the night before (don't know to whom), Colorado offers $11,000 per student (combined state and local aid). With an average class size of 25 (it's higher than that in Douglas County!) that's $275K per K-12 class. Where does the money go? No answer - but I guess we're supposed to think there's something suspicious about it.
Bob Schaffer, chairman of the state board of education, and former legislator, then spoke at length. Pronouncing school choice "the most important public policy topic in the United States," he began by referring to the Founders' belief that "we won't last long if we don't have an educated populace."
He then cited Milt Friedman's cost and quality matrix. The idea seems to be that the only time you care about cost and quality is when you're spending your own money on yourself. He touched on the 1994 charter school act, then alleged that the performance record of charter schools is "quite good."
But in fact, it's about the same as the performance of regular public schools (see this report), which seems to me to disprove in one go both the premise that school choice is a panacea, or that unions are the key factor in preventing educational achievement or improvement.)
He got applause when he said that "Parents bear the first responsibility for education."
Then he said, "If you trust government workers outside your own family, I guarantee your children will not be successful."
That's the kind of astonishing statement I go to these meetings to hear. So, all (union) teachers fail? No one who has gone to public school can be successful? Really? The statement is both false and absurd.
It was announced that there were 1200 people in the audience, which seemed about right. The show was also broadcast to Michigan, Nebraska, California, and Wyoming.
Dan Gerken (Douglas County School Board member) spoke briefly about the voucher experiment, and announced that he thought an appeal would be heard this April, and he expected a Supreme Court decision by the end of next year.
Dick Morris spoke. He used to be a strategist for Bill Clinton (where he advocated for pushing bad teachers out of schools, but he said that strategy didn't work). He was behind "No child left behind," but he said that didn't work, either. So we need competition. And that will work because... ?
To sum up: I wasn't impressed. Charter school data, in which we have lots of schools that waived union contracts, pretty clearly prove that teacher unions aren't the problem. In fact, it would be refreshing to hear a nice, succinct description of just what problem this group IS trying to solve.
And here's something else worth considering. Being "happy" with your choices is NOT the same thing as making good ones (in the domain of either cost OR quality). Educational accomplishment isn't about reinforcing the values of your parents; it's about demonstrable mastery and application of content. And there just isn't much evidence here that "choice" by itself results in that.
On the other hand, every chair had a free, pretty spiffy canary yellow scarf on it. It has "National School Choice Week" stitched into one end. It is 100% polyester fleece, made in China, and was wonderfully warm around my neck as I walked home. I don't know who paid for it, but I'm grateful.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Sarah Lacy and embracing volatility
The keynote speaker at OCLC's Americas Regional Council Member Meeting and Symposium was Sarah Lacy. She was incredible: funny, articulate, insightful,and thought-provoking.
She's a journalist who got her start writing about Silicon Valley and Web 2.0 then took off for 40 weeks all over Africa, India, and China looking for tech entrepreneurs.
She had a lot of fascinating things to say, but what sticks with me is the reality of what some educators have long been saying: the significant innovation, the rapid job creation, the Big Ideas, aren't coming from us anymore. They're being cooked up in formerly third world countries by people who are solving problems Silicon Valley wouldn't even think of. For instance: in India, there's a guy who has figured out a way to build super cheap transmission stations, providing cell phone service to rural communities for $2 a month per customer. And who knew that in Nigeria, the mostly bootlegged film industry (called "Nollywood") is 2nd after Bollywood in the sheer number of new movies, and third (Hollywood, Bollywood, Nollywood) in terms of revenue?
Lacy said, "Because of when these people were born, where they were born doesn't matter."
After digging into what makes entrepreneurs tick, she's become one herself. Check out her new company here.
When someone asked her what we could apply from what she had learned to libraries, she put it succinctly: entrepreneurs don't fight and deny volatility; they embrace it. So should we.
She's a journalist who got her start writing about Silicon Valley and Web 2.0 then took off for 40 weeks all over Africa, India, and China looking for tech entrepreneurs.
She had a lot of fascinating things to say, but what sticks with me is the reality of what some educators have long been saying: the significant innovation, the rapid job creation, the Big Ideas, aren't coming from us anymore. They're being cooked up in formerly third world countries by people who are solving problems Silicon Valley wouldn't even think of. For instance: in India, there's a guy who has figured out a way to build super cheap transmission stations, providing cell phone service to rural communities for $2 a month per customer. And who knew that in Nigeria, the mostly bootlegged film industry (called "Nollywood") is 2nd after Bollywood in the sheer number of new movies, and third (Hollywood, Bollywood, Nollywood) in terms of revenue?
Lacy said, "Because of when these people were born, where they were born doesn't matter."
After digging into what makes entrepreneurs tick, she's become one herself. Check out her new company here.
When someone asked her what we could apply from what she had learned to libraries, she put it succinctly: entrepreneurs don't fight and deny volatility; they embrace it. So should we.
Sneak peak on OCLC research on librarian perceptions
Yesterday I heard OCLC's Cathy deRosa give an advance preview of a recent study of librarian perceptions. Her team surveyed 4,168 OCLC member librarians. About 48% of them were academics, and 31% public.
Below are a few highlights:
General priorities were for public librarians the provision of access to the internet, the demonstration of value, licensed e-collections, access to technology generally, and the need to form community partnerships. For academic librarians, the issues were licensing, future of higher ed, facilities, visibility of collection, and digitization projects. Only community college librarians listed as a significant priority providing services through mobile devices, which played a big role in our keynote speaker's remarks about third world innovation.
Current initiatives for public librarians were ebooks and other eresources; for academics, discovery tools and digitization projects.
Use predictions. 55% of public librarians thought physical visits to the library would increase over the next five years; but only 44% of community college librarians and 40% of academics thought so.
About 85% of all kinds of librarians thought online use would increase; in the last survey of users, about 72% thought it would stay the same. Who's right? deRosa says, "Usually the users."
Staying informed. Or particular interest to me was how librarians stay informed about professional issues. The source most used (by 66%) was listservs and email. Next came periodicals. Public librarians read, in this order, Library Journal, American Libraries, and Public Libraries. Webinars are rising for newer librarians (although still not huge). About 20% cited blogs, and the top rated were Annoyed Librarian, blogjunction, and Librarian in Black. But blog reading by librarians seems to be falling, which is worth thinking about. As is the case with users, 85% do NOT use Twitter.
OCLC has earned its position as a "thought leader" through precisely this kind of research and reporting. And it certainly gives a writer something to think about. And of course, to blog and Tweet about, although it appears email would be smarter.
Below are a few highlights:
General priorities were for public librarians the provision of access to the internet, the demonstration of value, licensed e-collections, access to technology generally, and the need to form community partnerships. For academic librarians, the issues were licensing, future of higher ed, facilities, visibility of collection, and digitization projects. Only community college librarians listed as a significant priority providing services through mobile devices, which played a big role in our keynote speaker's remarks about third world innovation.
Current initiatives for public librarians were ebooks and other eresources; for academics, discovery tools and digitization projects.
Use predictions. 55% of public librarians thought physical visits to the library would increase over the next five years; but only 44% of community college librarians and 40% of academics thought so.
About 85% of all kinds of librarians thought online use would increase; in the last survey of users, about 72% thought it would stay the same. Who's right? deRosa says, "Usually the users."
Staying informed. Or particular interest to me was how librarians stay informed about professional issues. The source most used (by 66%) was listservs and email. Next came periodicals. Public librarians read, in this order, Library Journal, American Libraries, and Public Libraries. Webinars are rising for newer librarians (although still not huge). About 20% cited blogs, and the top rated were Annoyed Librarian, blogjunction, and Librarian in Black. But blog reading by librarians seems to be falling, which is worth thinking about. As is the case with users, 85% do NOT use Twitter.
OCLC has earned its position as a "thought leader" through precisely this kind of research and reporting. And it certainly gives a writer something to think about. And of course, to blog and Tweet about, although it appears email would be smarter.
Citations about the library as a force in the book purchasing market
I keep looking these stats up, then keep forgetting where I found them, but I want to let librarians and publishers know that I didn't make them up. So, some assertions and citations from an upcoming article I'm writing for Public Libraries:
We account for about 10 percent of publisher sales (American Library Association, "Marketing to Libraries," ALA Library Fact Sheet 5.)
and 40 percent of children s (Barbara Fister, " Publishers & Librarians: Two Cultures, One Goal," Library Journal, May 1, 2009.
We account for about 10 percent of publisher sales (American Library Association, "Marketing to Libraries," ALA Library Fact Sheet 5.)
and 40 percent of children s (Barbara Fister, " Publishers & Librarians: Two Cultures, One Goal," Library Journal, May 1, 2009.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Library as publisher: the Wisdom Within These Walls
Libraries are more than distributors of content. We are, or can be, co-publishers, and even co-creators. Here's an example of one project here in Douglas County, Colorado.
Finding Wisdom - Transforming the 21st Century Library from David Schler on Vimeo.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Dear Publishing Partner
This is a second document (the other is here) that the Douglas County Libraries hopes can be broadly adopted by the library community as a guide to the purchase of digital content.
Dear Publisher Partner:
Thank you for your bold willingness to invest in the future of publishing and readership. Libraries and publishers have a lot in common: we connect writers with their audience, we promote literacy, and in the process, we grow the whole market for literacy. Our goal is to replicate the current print-purchase model libraries have had with publishers like you for centuries with e-content. We invite you to participate with us.
We want to buy e-content from you. In the past year alone, my library redirected 10% of our $3.5 million collection purchasing budget for e-content. We suspect that our e-content purchasing will reach 20% next year. We are encouraging and supporting other libraries to join us in supporting our new publisher/partners.
We need to own the files. Douglas County Libraries has built an industry standard platform (using Adobe Content Server) that enables us to smoothly integrate e-content with our catalog, providing a seamless experience for our patrons that replicates our print check-out model. But that requires us to have possession of the content. We are not asking for the copyright, or the right of exclusive distribution. We only want possession of the file on our own servers, just as we traditionally had possession of a copy of a book within our facilities. The Library may index the eBooks to better enable patrons to locate materials of interest. However, this index will only be used for that purpose, and will not be provided to any other organization.
We have already teamed up with a few other publishing pioneers, among them the Colorado Independent Publishers Association, Gale/Cengage, Lerner, Marshall Cavendish and IPG. For some of those publishers, we wrestled through a contract-writing process that wound up being both expensive and time-consuming for both parties. In the interests of getting more content sooner, I’d like to streamline things while still letting publishers know what they need to know.
Douglas County Libraries represents the following to you:
• We will buy a copy for each simultaneous user. That is, if we buy one copy, one person can check it out from us at a time. That loan period will be for 3 weeks, although our system allows people to return a book early, making it available for another patron. Note that this is precisely what we do with print titles. For virtually all e-content, we intend to purchase an additional copy for every four “holds” (people waiting for the title to be available) in most cases. Our users will be able to read the ebooks either through a browser on a private cloud (hosted by the library), or through a device capable of reading Digital Rights Management (DRM)-protected ePub files.
• We will attach DRM when you want it. Again, the Adobe Content Server requires us to receive the file in the ePub format. If the file is “Creative Commons” and you do not require DRM, then we can offer it as a free download to as many people as want it. DRM is the default.
• We will promote the title. Over 80% of our adult checkouts (and we checked out over 8.2 million items last year) are driven by displays. We will present e-content data (covers and descriptions) on large touch screens, computer catalogs, and a mobile application. These displays may be “built” by staff for special promotions (Westerns, Romances, Travel, etc.), automatically on the basis of use (highlighting popular titles), and automatically through a recommendation engine based on customer use and community reviews.
• We will promote your company. See a sample press release, attached. [Note: not attached to this blog post.]
• If you provide a link to enable this, we will enable our patrons to directly purchase the title. Some of our patrons don’t want to wait!
• We may remove your content from our catalog if it is not used. But we will not resell or transfer ownership of the file to any other person or entity. But see Concerns below.
What we need from you: a discount. Libraries are volume buyers. For print, we typically get a discount of 45 percent. Our goal is to buy as much content as possible, and to demonstrate to our community the value of the cooperative purchasing agreement that is the public library. We also understand that the pricing for e-content is in flux. This discount can be negotiated annually.
Concerns for the future: many book buyers got their start by picking up used books. The library contributes to that market significantly: we give books to schools, churches, thrift stores, and active veterans. Used books are a significant part of the larger reading ecosystem, and they promote both library use and new book purchasing.
But there are no used ebooks at this time. At some point – not now – I hope that publishers and libraries can come back to this issue. Again, we assure you that anything we buy from you will NOT be resold or transferred to any other person or entity. But we’ll want to talk with you about this further down the line for new materials.
I hope that this letter clearly delineates the terms of engagement between the Douglas County Libraries and you. Again, this understanding closely mirrors the terms between libraries and publishers for over a hundred years. We think it greatly benefits both of us.
Would you be willing to accept this letter instead of a more formal contract?
Sincerely,
Dear Publisher Partner:
Thank you for your bold willingness to invest in the future of publishing and readership. Libraries and publishers have a lot in common: we connect writers with their audience, we promote literacy, and in the process, we grow the whole market for literacy. Our goal is to replicate the current print-purchase model libraries have had with publishers like you for centuries with e-content. We invite you to participate with us.
We want to buy e-content from you. In the past year alone, my library redirected 10% of our $3.5 million collection purchasing budget for e-content. We suspect that our e-content purchasing will reach 20% next year. We are encouraging and supporting other libraries to join us in supporting our new publisher/partners.
We need to own the files. Douglas County Libraries has built an industry standard platform (using Adobe Content Server) that enables us to smoothly integrate e-content with our catalog, providing a seamless experience for our patrons that replicates our print check-out model. But that requires us to have possession of the content. We are not asking for the copyright, or the right of exclusive distribution. We only want possession of the file on our own servers, just as we traditionally had possession of a copy of a book within our facilities. The Library may index the eBooks to better enable patrons to locate materials of interest. However, this index will only be used for that purpose, and will not be provided to any other organization.
We have already teamed up with a few other publishing pioneers, among them the Colorado Independent Publishers Association, Gale/Cengage, Lerner, Marshall Cavendish and IPG. For some of those publishers, we wrestled through a contract-writing process that wound up being both expensive and time-consuming for both parties. In the interests of getting more content sooner, I’d like to streamline things while still letting publishers know what they need to know.
Douglas County Libraries represents the following to you:
• We will buy a copy for each simultaneous user. That is, if we buy one copy, one person can check it out from us at a time. That loan period will be for 3 weeks, although our system allows people to return a book early, making it available for another patron. Note that this is precisely what we do with print titles. For virtually all e-content, we intend to purchase an additional copy for every four “holds” (people waiting for the title to be available) in most cases. Our users will be able to read the ebooks either through a browser on a private cloud (hosted by the library), or through a device capable of reading Digital Rights Management (DRM)-protected ePub files.
• We will attach DRM when you want it. Again, the Adobe Content Server requires us to receive the file in the ePub format. If the file is “Creative Commons” and you do not require DRM, then we can offer it as a free download to as many people as want it. DRM is the default.
• We will promote the title. Over 80% of our adult checkouts (and we checked out over 8.2 million items last year) are driven by displays. We will present e-content data (covers and descriptions) on large touch screens, computer catalogs, and a mobile application. These displays may be “built” by staff for special promotions (Westerns, Romances, Travel, etc.), automatically on the basis of use (highlighting popular titles), and automatically through a recommendation engine based on customer use and community reviews.
• We will promote your company. See a sample press release, attached. [Note: not attached to this blog post.]
• If you provide a link to enable this, we will enable our patrons to directly purchase the title. Some of our patrons don’t want to wait!
• We may remove your content from our catalog if it is not used. But we will not resell or transfer ownership of the file to any other person or entity. But see Concerns below.
What we need from you: a discount. Libraries are volume buyers. For print, we typically get a discount of 45 percent. Our goal is to buy as much content as possible, and to demonstrate to our community the value of the cooperative purchasing agreement that is the public library. We also understand that the pricing for e-content is in flux. This discount can be negotiated annually.
Concerns for the future: many book buyers got their start by picking up used books. The library contributes to that market significantly: we give books to schools, churches, thrift stores, and active veterans. Used books are a significant part of the larger reading ecosystem, and they promote both library use and new book purchasing.
But there are no used ebooks at this time. At some point – not now – I hope that publishers and libraries can come back to this issue. Again, we assure you that anything we buy from you will NOT be resold or transferred to any other person or entity. But we’ll want to talk with you about this further down the line for new materials.
I hope that this letter clearly delineates the terms of engagement between the Douglas County Libraries and you. Again, this understanding closely mirrors the terms between libraries and publishers for over a hundred years. We think it greatly benefits both of us.
Would you be willing to accept this letter instead of a more formal contract?
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)