Sticky Fingers and Literacy Tax Dollars?

This is the time of year when Minnesota state legislators have town halls and fund raisers. At one recent event, I asked a long term state legislator if they knew how much of the money allocated by the READ Act that they had just bragged about went into the coffers of private equity companies. The response included a mumble about unintended consequences. 

State literacy initiatives are presented as investments in children. Increasingly, they have also become intentional, consequential investments for private equity (PE.) In both Mississippi and Minnesota, a small group of investment firms now owns many of the products that schools are required, or strongly encouraged to purchase. The same firms profit from screening students, training teachers, and renewing those contracts year after year. The same firms have their fingers in the legislative money pots of a lot of states.

Curriculum Associates (i-Ready), Renaissance Learning (FastBridge and Star), Edmentum (Exact Path), NWEA (MAP Growth), and Lexia's LETRS teacher-training program represent the most widely used literacy products in these states. Behind these familiar education brands are a handful of private equity firms including Veritas Capital, Blackstone, Francisco Partners, Permira, Berkshire Partners, Hellman & Friedman, and Vistria Group.  These money makers have consolidated ownership across the literacy marketplace.

This matters because these are not one-time purchases. Student screeners require annual licenses. Teacher certifications require ongoing training and renewal. Every school year, public education dollars flow back through the same recurring-revenue business model. A note here about the use of screens in school: identifying literacy needs increasingly routes through licensed software platforms, sometimes student-facing computer programs, sometimes tablet apps that teachers use to record one-on-one assessments, but in either case, the data and scoring run through proprietary, licensed vendor software rather than locally-built and locally owned and controlled programs. I guess cuz Minnesotans are smart enough to do that kind of thing..

A growing share of the infrastructure surrounding public literacy policy is controlled by financial firms whose legal obligation is to maximize returns for investors. When the same investment groups own the assessments that identify literacy needs and the professional development used to address them, policymakers and taxpayers should ask whether sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that educational decisions are driven by evidence rather than by market concentration.

The issue is not whether these products are effective, although that's still a very open question. The issue is accountability. When state policy effectively channels recurring public dollars into a marketplace dominated by a small number of financial firms, citizens deserve transparency about who owns these products, how much public money is spent on them each year, how those contracts are awarded and renewed, and whether meaningful competition still exists, and whether the programs are actually working and not being massaged as has been widely reported about Mississippi’s numbers.

 Generating dependable returns for investment portfolios should not be the object of legislators. 

The Fear-Driven QA Trap

 When institutions or governments respond to AI-generated OER content with centralized quality gatekeeping, they're operating from a scarcity and control mindset, the same mindset that OER is designed to move away from. The logic goes: "AI tools are producing low-quality materials at scale, so we need stronger filters before anything reaches learners." That feels responsible, but it smuggles in some problematic assumptions.

The radical promise of OER isn't just free resources; it's freedom to adapt. The 5Rs framework (Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix, Redistribute) places the teacher at the center as an active agent, not a passive consumer of vetted content. A teacher who finds a resource that is 80% right for their classroom isn't supposed to wait for a quality-assured version; they're supposed to fix the 20%.This means imperfection is not the enemy of OER; it's assumed. The whole architecture of OER anticipates that materials will need local adaptation. When quality assurance becomes the primary response to AI-generated OER content, several things happen that cut against OER's grain:

 It re-centralizes authority. A review board or quality committee becomes the arbiter of what's usable, recreating the gatekeeping dynamic of traditional publishing. That’s comforting to bureaucrats but not useful for teaching and learning.

It signals distrust of teachers. The implicit message is that educators can't judge whether a resource suits their students, that they need experts to pre-approve it for them.

It slows the ecology down. OER's strength is its velocity and adaptability. Heavy QA processes introduce bottlenecks that favor static, "finished" resources over living, iterable ones.

It mistakes polish for fitness. A highly polished resource that doesn't fit a specific classroom context is less useful than a rough one that a teacher can quickly reshape. QA processes typically optimize for the former.

Rather than asking "is this resource good enough?" before release, the OER-consistent question is "does this resource come with enough transparency for a teacher to assess and adapt it?" That shifts the work from pre-publication gatekeeping to:

Providing Clear metadata about how, when, and with what tools a resource was made;

Creating in Editable formats like Moodle courses so adaptation and localized assessments are actually possible, not just theoretically permitted. These formats need to be able to be used equally in environments with the least resources as well as classrooms with the latest technology.

Providing a Platform for Community Annotation so teachers can flag issues and share improvements contextually;

Build Educator Capacity that helps teachers develop the critical eye to evaluate AI-generated content themselves.

Using fear of low-quality AI content as a reason to reduce teacher agency is contradictory to what gives OER its beauty. Teachers know their students and are always going to be a better quality filter for their specific context than any generalized review process. Fear-based QA trades that distributed, context-sensitive intelligence for a centralized standard that fits every classroom approximately and none just right.

The better bet is trusting the OER ecosystem's own immune system which includes: teachers adapting; communities annotating; and bad resources simply not getting used or getting improved rather than building walls at the gate. Spend money on teachers in classrooms not filter creators. 

The Missing Infrastructure for OER in K-12.

 

Open Educational Resources (OER) have transformed how we think about curriculum high-quality, openly licensed materials are now available for nearly every subject and grade level. Yet despite billions invested in OER development and curation, adoption remains frustratingly slow in K-12 schools. The reason isn't content quality or teacher awareness. It's infrastructure.

The Iowa Wake-Up Call

Iowa's $17 million federal OER investment, the largest K-12 OER curriculum initiative ever, should have been a triumph. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. The state created Canvas courses featuring premium OER from Illustrative Mathematics, OpenSciEd, and Great Minds. Then, Iowa's Department of Education refused to share the materials despite their Creative Commons licenses, effectively locking publicly funded open resources inside Canvas's proprietary platform. Even Iowa's own digital learning experts were denied access.

Iowa's bungle revealed a fundamental flaw in how we're thinking about OER implementation. We've focused on creating and finding open content while ignoring the platforms that deliver, assess, and manage learning. The result? "OER-washing", open content trapped in closed systems.

Why OER Commons Isn't Enough

Many assume OER Commons solves the platform problem, but it addresses a different challenge entirely. OER Commons excels as a discovery tool; think of it as a library catalog helping teachers find quality resources. But teachers don't just need to find materials; they need to deliver courses, administer assessments, track student progress, manage grade books, and integrate with their district's student information systems.

OER Commons provides none of these capabilities. There's no student login, no assignment submission, no grading tools, no analytics dashboards. When teachers find great resources on OER Commons, they still must download them and upload them to Canvas, Google Classroom, or Schoology, returning to proprietary platforms. The discovery problem has been solved; the delivery problem remains.

The $450 Million Opportunity (and Threat)

Here's what makes this urgent: middle school math OER alone, if locked into proprietary platforms and sold nationally, represents approximately $450 million in market value. Venture capital and private equity have noticed. In recent years, for-profit companies have been positioning "open" content within closed platforms where they can charge for access, analytics, and integration features.

Districts think they're adopting free materials, but they're actually buying into expensive platform dependencies. The $XX per student they spend on LMS licenses quickly exceeds what they would have paid for traditional textbooks—except now they've lost the ability to easily share, adapt, or control their curriculum, which is the promise of OER.

The Multi-State Moodle Solution

What if states pooled resources to build shared, truly open infrastructure? A multi-state Moodle consortium could provide:

• Shared hosting and technical infrastructure that no single state could afford alone

• Common integrations with student information systems, built once and used everywhere

• Standardized professional development and implementation support

• Turnkey OER course packages that teachers can immediately use and adapt

• Genuine community control—no vendor lock-in, no surprise price increases, no surveillance capitalism

The economics are compelling. Instead of thousands of districts each negotiating separate LMS contracts, states could share costs while maintaining local control. Member fees would run far below current commercial licensing costs, and savings could be redirected to teacher training and OER customization.

Why Hewlett Foundation Is Uniquely Positioned

The biggest barrier to a unified open-source strategy isn't technical; it's coordination. States don't spontaneously collaborate at this scale. They need a trusted convener with OER credibility and the resources to fund startup costs.

The Hewlett Foundation could be that convener. With long-standing relationships across state agencies, OER networks, and education organizations, Hewlett has the credibility to bring states together. An initial $5-8 million investment over three years could establish infrastructure serving five pilot states, creating a blueprint that dozens more could follow.

This wouldn't compete with OER Commons; it would complete it, creating the delivery layer that makes Hewlett's discovery investment fully valuable. Teachers could search OER Commons, then import materials directly into their district's Moodle instance for actual teaching, assessment, and learning management.

Global Impact

The implications extend far beyond U.S. borders. A proven, well-supported Moodle model would give countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America access to world-class learning infrastructure at a fraction of proprietary costs. Instead of each nation paying foreign vendors for platform access, they could run their own instances, customize for local contexts, and contribute improvements back to a shared commons.

Smaller language communities could finally create culturally responsive content without prohibitive platform costs. A Somali teacher in Minneapolis and a Somali teacher in Mogadishu could share materials seamlessly, exactly what OER was supposed to enable.

The Choice Ahead

Open Educational Resources stand at a crossroads. One path leads to vendor capture, where "open" content becomes raw material for proprietary profit. The other leads to genuine educational infrastructure that is community controlled, globally accessible, and truly open.

The content is ready. The need is clear. What's missing is the infrastructure and the convener to make it real. With the right leadership, we could finally fulfill OER's promise: accessible, adaptable, equitable education at scale.

The question is whether we'll build the infrastructure OER needs, or watch it get captured by the platforms it was supposed to replace.

UDL and OER: The False Promise of Universality

 I've been following the work of two educators I deeply respect and admire for almost 20 years. These are the kind of leaders every school district should have. But it's time they started complying with UNESCO's 2019 Recommendation on OER.

Their new compilation of opinions, experiences, PowerPoint presentations, and excerpts from noted educators begins with the "All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the editors, a specific chapter author and/or the publisher" warning.

I don't believe either educator really wants to enforce that ownership statement. They want to share ideas freely and build a community of professional teachers who exchange experiences and innovations. Instead, they're trapped by education's tired notion that ideas need a restrictive copyright to be taken seriously—a notion that serves the legacy publishing industry but fails students and teachers, especially those with the fewest resources. We must solve first for those with the least.

The Universal Design Paradox

Universal Design for Learning's claim to "universality" fundamentally fails because it ignores UNESCO's 2019 OER Recommendation. This blind spot undermines UDL's own goals and reflects systemic problems with how we distribute educational resources.

UNESCO recognizes that true educational universality demands more than accessible design—it requires resources that are freely available, legally reusable, and adaptable across all contexts without economic, technological, or legal barriers. The 2019 Recommendation calls for educational resources that can be "accessed, used, adapted, and redistributed by others with no or limited restrictions."

Yet UDL typically operates within proprietary ecosystems that contradict these principles. When UDL implementations rely on expensive proprietary learning management systems, subscription software, or copyrighted materials that cannot be modified or shared, they create a fundamental contradiction: resources designed to be universally accessible become universally inaccessible to those who cannot afford them.

Breaking the Proprietary Trap

Proprietary educational publishing undermines teacher expertise by creating closed, static systems. The "all rights reserved" model forces teachers to purchase ideas rather than share resources. Teachers cannot legally copy, adapt, or distribute content, isolating educators and stifling innovation that could make learning more accessible.

This creates a competitive environment where teachers become consumers and 'experts' gain status through commercial metrics rather than educational effectiveness. It prevents the localized adaptations and collaborative improvements that diverse learning communities require.

Open licenses transform this dynamic entirely. Teachers can revise, remix, and redistribute materials, becoming genuine partners in creating universally accessible education. An openly licensed UDL resource becomes a starting point, not a finished product. A teacher can adapt an urban gardening curriculum for desert climates while maintaining UDL's multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression—recognizing both the original author's and adapting teacher's expertise in a resource that can be shared and improved by others.

Building True Universality

OER promotes collaborative communities that align with UDL's values. When teachers improve open resources, they contribute to collective knowledge, fostering continuous improvement that makes education more accessible. This shifts the focus from "experts" to dynamic networks of professional educators addressing localized learning needs.

The adoption of OER represents fundamental trust in teachers as professionals capable of sound curriculum decisions. Until UDL integrates OER principles—making accessibility inseparable from openness, affordability, and global adaptability—its claims of universality remain hollow promises that reinforce educational colonialism.

True universal design for learning cannot exist within closed, proprietary systems that prevent the collaboration and adaptation diverse learning communities require.

Comparing Two Approaches to Educational Innovation

Earlier today on LinkedIn, Amber Hoye shared the paper she wrote with Kelly Arispe and Meagan Haynes, "The Impact of Professional Development on K–12 Teacher Awareness, Use, and Perceptions of OER", which was published today in IRRODL!

 I commented that our Sopala paper was also focused on K-12 teacher professional development, but with a different context. I also said it would be useful to see what's different and what's the same. So I asked a couple of questions using Claude.ai to know if it could produce a comparison. Here is the response from Claud.ai

 

AI and Human-Centered Open Education

 In response to a post on LinkedIn about the OER World Congress by UNESCO in Dubai, the question was asked, "Spreading the word on upskilling has to be a global effort—collaborations, partnerships, and community engagement could help bridge that gap. What strategies do you think would work best?"

We have a potential example that we think provides an example that others can follow.

(The following is an abstract of a more in-depth paper that will be published by MIT CSAIL in January 2025.)

AI and Human-Centered Open Education

This paper describes an innovative approach to K-12 education that functions effectively in classrooms with or without internet access. Currently being implemented in the Northern Region of Ghana, this project creates an example for other countries facing similar disparities in technology access. AI-enhanced, offline-first tools deliver quality educational resources and personalized learning experiences to students in remote and underserved areas. The initiative prioritizes those with the least access and then scales to all classrooms, regardless of internet availability.

The global K-12 education system is ready for a solution that offers translation, assessment, and teacher professional development tools adaptable to any setting, with or without internet access. In Africa, some schools have internet access, but many do not. Teacher training on digital assessment tools is rare as is access to low-cost high quality instructional materials. Our solution leverages proven, low-cost technology - MoodleBox, Kolibri, Internet-in-a-Box, and Kiwix - to provide all teachers with access to high-quality, free, culturally relevant instructional materials and help them become proficient with the technology. An offline-first model is crucial for guaranteeing equity and inclusion for all students.

Our solution focuses on three key areas: 1) Translating educational materials; 2) Assessing student learning; and 3) Enhancing teacher skills and professionalism. Using the student's first language for instruction and assessment is central to our approach.

While the education ministries in many African countries mandate instruction in the student's first language, high-quality first-language materials are often lacking. Our solution provides accessibility to high-quality instructional resources by using AI to help translate open education instructional materials (including assessments) into the first languages of teachers and their students.

We also support teachers’ systematic delivery of assessments and the use of assessment data to better support their students and reflect on their instruction. Currently, in most rural African classrooms, teachers write the assessment questions on the chalkboard and students respond either verbally or on paper at their seats. This chalkboard-based teaching method limits teachers' ability to use assessments for formative purposes thus hindering broader educational progress. Our solution makes using assessments for formative purposes more feasible and allows teachers to access and reflect on data at any time. The technology also supports the delivery of comparative achievement assessments across different regions. Our solution makes it possible to monitor incremental progress in achievement for individual students across classrooms, teachers, schools, districts, and regions.

Finally, our solution uses the same technologies being used by students to provide professional development. We have partnered with several local nonprofit organizations experienced in similar projects to offer on-site professional development and technical support, focusing on empowering educators rather than merely delivering products. The professional development content materials are openly licensed and delivered using the same tools the students use.

Based on the encouraging results of our pilot in the Northern Region of Ghana, we expect 5,000 students in Ghana to increase learning achievement in reading and math by at least 40% in the next three years. The offline accessibility and rich, interactive, locally curated content create a new learning paradigm, removing the barriers of internet access and limited resources and empowering teachers and students.

Co-Authors:

● Dan McGuire, Executive Director, SABIER, Minneapolis, MN, USA - dan@sabier.org

● Robert Murphy, Owner and Principal Education Research Consultant, LFC Research,
Mountain View, CA, USA - bfmurph@icloud.com

● Sadik Shahadu, Executive Director, Dagbani Wikimedians User Group, Tamale, Ghana
uniques.sadike@gmail.com

● Peter K. Amoabil, Founder and Executive Director of Rural Literacy Solutions, Tamale,
Ghana - amoabilhatma@gmail.com

● Maxwell Beganim, Africa Anglophone Coordinator,  Open Knowledge Network  
. Kumasi, Ghana - mbeganimgh@gmail.com 

● Musah Fuseini, Team Member, Dagbani Wikimedians User Group, Tamale, Ghana -musahfm@gmail.com

● Steve Miley, MoodleBox Advocate, Santa Barbara, CA, USA - stevenraymiley@gmail.com

● Stephane Coillet-Matillon, CEO, Co-founder, Kiwix Offline, Lausanne, Switzerland -stephane@kiwix.org

CC BY NC is the new Standard

It’s time to update my thoughts on why educational materials should be openly licensed and not for commercial use. Six years ago on my blog, I wrote:

 

“Eventually, our public institutions will begin exercising their ability to intentionally and purposely create publicly owned Creative Commons licensed alternatives to the current proprietary 'added value’ models for which they pay handsomely.' CC BY NC is consistent with that intent and purpose."

Public institutions in the United States still aren’t exercising their ability to create publicly owned Creative Commons licensed alternatives to the current proprietary 'added value’ models. They still usually just write checks to for-profit publishers or require students to write checks.

Today, in the Global South, writing checks for educational content isn’t an option for public institutions, or their students, or their students' parents. There isn’t any money for the proprietary ‘added value’ content that costs anywhere from $10 to $100. There is no education ‘market’ in the Global South.

In the Global South, the creation of publicly owned Creative Commons licensed education material needs to be paid for by the people who can afford to write the checks. In some cases that will be governments that get grants from the North. In others, philanthropy will pay for the materials and provide them directly to schools and teachers bypassing the governments. The business model of education in the United States doesn’t work in the Global South.

When philanthropists or governments in the Global South pay to create educational materials they don’t want to be providing raw materials for a product for which for-profit companies will generate revenue. That’s why CC BY NC licenses are the only practical option. The materials can still be developed for the South and sold to institutions in the North willing to pay, but the creators need to be more than adequately included by choice in the revenue generated.

If we really do want to:
     Boost rigorous instruction, student feedback, and assessment in all content areas;
     Provide scalable and timely student support;
     And expand opportunities for quality teacher professional development,

CC BY NC is the new Standard.