Misión

Research

The current level of knowledge regarding open education in the EU and other European countries is not high, though it is probably better than in other parts of the world with the possible exceptions of North America and Australasia.

AT.1

To properly establish a policy in the field of open education, a lot of desk research needs to be done within each Member State, since a lot of things are happening nationally and internationally. (Member States should not rely only on EU-level research to inform their decisions.)405

AT.2

It is important for each Member State not only to look at “who is doing what” in their own country but also to consider who they need to bring together in order to facilitate decisions and understand the areas they have to focus on.406

Awareness-raising

This complements the suggestions for the EU regarding raising awareness about open education.

RO.3 What each Member State does in the field should be made more visible at EU level.

Content and copyright

These are also complementary to the suggestions about awareness-raising.

BG.2 Member States must ensure that teaching and learning resources and research _{outcomes are openly published if produced using public funds.} SK.4

Member States should work together and with the EU to develop a common framework in relation to the procurement of educational resources and textbooks commissioned to private publishers by the governments and funded with public funds or with European funds, to be published under open licenses.

405 _{Only a minority of Member States have carried out such studies (e.g. Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and} the UK): the others have done nothing, or rely on EU-level reports.

Recognition of Prior Learning An important area for further action:

DE.1

There should be a system in which each Member State supports the Recognition of Prior Learning, thus making it possible to transform lifelong learning and vocational training systems, thereby increasing openness of and democratising access to higher education.407

Leadership

The list of suggestions below is the longest therefore showing the importance of leadership in the open education field408_.

LT.1

Member States should involve school principals, and leaders of educational institution more generally, as they can be both an obstacle and an enabler in the implementation of policies and agendas.

IE.3

Policymakers in open education in Member States should always remember that if a policy is to be an agent of change, the engaged stakeholders will inevitably feel a certain degree of discomfort and must be guided through the process of embracing the proposed innovations.

IT.1

The approach of “living policy making” is probably the secret of the success of policy in a Member State: engaging and accompanying stakeholders in the implementation phase should actually be the core activity of the staff in charge of the policy; this needs a lot of support time but pays off in terms of impact and perceived relevance of the initiative.

Pedagogy

This suggestion is in a contrast to those under “Standards” above.

AT.3

Policymakers in Member States, especially federal ones, must be open to different visions when they are planning policies and measures involving stakeholders, and there has to be the necessary boldness to take something of a visionary approach. Digital skills for students

It was a surprising that there was not much more on this.

EE.2 Member States should realise that it is important to consider that digital skills are needed to prepare students for higher education. This can be an effective way to democratise and to widen access to universities.

EE.1

Member States should consider, when developing digital skills in schools and when adopting the use of digital devices with children, the concerns of the parents and provide them with guidance and support to ensure the resources are used effectively.409

Collaboration

This fits the European approach better than might be the case in North America. However it might not fit the student-numbers-based or outcome-based funding models now common in Member States, where either there is competition for student fees or competition for Ministry student-based funding.

407 _{This is a topic worthy of its own full report. For an introduction see}

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/focus-on/152.pdf and the discussion in the ADOERUP 2015 report to the European Parliament,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563397/IPOL_STU(2015)563397_EN.pdf sections 4.2.6 and 5.1

408 _{http://www.dtransform.eu – part-funded by Erasmus+}

409 _{This has been taken very seriously in the UK when Becta was in charge of such policies – see e.g.}

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrdering Download/Exploiting%20ICT.pdf – but arguably less so now, though see https://www.theguardian.com/teacher- network/teacher-blog/2014/jul/16/talking-to-parents-how-schools-using-social-media

FI.1

Member States should, where appropriate, favour more collaboration among institutions: universities need to see the value of this cooperation and the Ministry needs to reward it, while also working on practical issues such as interoperability and information-sharing. This will help to “institutionalise” openness.

Organisation

Opinions may vary on the wisdom of this. It is almost routine for quality agencies, less so for other areas of activity.