Almost all computer programs in schools so far have focused primarily on teachers and students acquiring basic computer skills, and there is not much attention to ‘computer aided learning’. The teachers also have no opportunity to use these basic computer skills acquired and the training in many cases becomes redundant and irrelevant. The workshop premise is that by shifting the focus to training teachers to use ICT educational tools for teaching regular subjects , it will enable greater ownership and commitment of teachers to using new possibilities offered by ICTs and consequently to more effective use of the ICT tools in the schools.

ICT Tools

These ICT tools adopt a learner centered approach based on a theory of learning called constructivism, its core idea being that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, building on her existing knowledge and it is not passively received from the teacher . The premise also is that by the teacher herself experiencing this pedagogical approach through use of these educational tools, she would be more amenable and able to adopt it while teaching in her classroom.

As the participants were science and mathematics high school teachers, the focus of the training was also on science and mathematics tools. Thus the tools selected were Geogebra, for mathematics, KSTARS and KtechLab and Kalzium for Science. Because of the strong subject knowledge the participant possessed, we were able to cover some advanced topics in the tools. The participants were required to an assessment which required them to select a topic from the syllabus that they teach, explain and demonstrate how they would use the ICT tool to aid in the teaching of the chosen topic. Finally they had to think of questions that they could ask students to enable critical thinking and constructively understand the topic.

The participants created very interesting lesson plans to teach specific topics of the syllabus as part of their assessment. They were able to integrate the textbook lesson well with the tools capabilities. What was very interesting was how they were able to go outside the scope of the material in the textbooks and ask students to observe certain phenomenon. For example, one of the teachers constructed a circum-circle of a triangle and through the interaction that is available in the tool demonstrated the relationship between the circum-centre(its position with respect to the triangle) and the type of triangle (acute, right-angled, obtuse). There were many such thought provoking lesson plans in all the tools.

In order to move beyond narrow ‘tool focus’ of ICTs, where techno-fascination is often a serious limitation and even danger of such programs, the program also had sessions on educational perspectives and the National Curriculum Framework 2005, where the potential of ICTs to support constructive teaching-learning approaches was discussed. ICT tools are often portrayed as self-learning tools that replace teachers. It was emphasised throughout the workshop that the tools would enable a child to learn only with appropriate facilitation by the teacher and hence the importance of the teacher’s role and her/his own ability to understand and use the tools. The program resources are available on www.KarnatakaEducation.org.in.

SMT Trainers

This workshop also gave opportunity for 5 master trainers that we had trained in August 2010 to train the teachers. The master trainers were able to take on many sessions of the training , especially learning how to use the tools. We were able to provide feedback that would enable them to train with much more confidence in their respective districts. These trainers were also able to learn some more advanced use of Geogebra in this workshop. As they had been using these tools since August, some of the trainers also had created their own lessons to use for the training sessions. One feedback for us is to keep emphasising the subject knowledge more than the technology per say because techno-fascination is still a danger that we must contend with – with the master trainers.

Feedback from Participants

The participants were enthusiastic about the possibilities of these tools in daily teaching learning processes. They have been added to the e-mail list pskarnataka@googlegroups.com to enable them to network, discuss these tools and also share their ideas, issues and solutions. Three of the participants explicitly talked about their experience understanding these tools. One of the mathematics teachers – Jnana Sangeetha said that “it was her dream come true”. She thought that the tool had a lot of potential to help her explain many of the abstract algebra equations with Geogebra. Two other teachers – Shivashankar R N and Narayana B S said that the interactive more enabled them to explore the concepts in different ways so they could take this learning back into the classrooms. Narayana B S said that he realised now why as a teacher he needs to learn how to use the computer and learn how to use these tools before exposing his students to it.

Overall, the learning and feedback was very encouraging and some of the participants have already called us after installing Ubuntu and the education packages in the school systems.

More photos of the workshop on http://picasaweb.google.com/103961979015213484120/ScienceAndMathsTeachersTrainingOnCAL?authkey=Gv1sRgCOLJ4IX2o7_FsAE

This workshop was conducted to give Institutional Capacity Development team (Mandya) an overview on ICT possibilities in education and thus to explore how ICT can be effectively used in ICD programme to achieve its objectives.

On the first day, Gurumurthy began with a discussion on ‘what is education and its purpose?’. Discussions suggested that education has to make children more humane and efficient in order to develop a peaceful society. Gurumurthy introduced the terms behaviorism and constructivism. Behaviorism assumes children as passive receivers while constructivism considers children as active participants who construct their own knowledge. He mentioned how ICT can act as an effective tool in this active learning process, assisting both teachers and children. Drawing from the Stages theory, important factors were discussed, such as Infrastructure provision, User capacity building, Availability of required software applications/digital resources, Involvement and support of organisation (department heads) and Information Systems internal function/system which needs to be provided over a period of time to successfully complete ICT programme.

He introduced ICD team members to ‘Open office Writer/Word Processor’ application on Windows. As the team explored the usage of Open office, Gurumurthy pointed that though it doesn’t look as appealing as other proprietary software it is important to use more and more ‘Free and Open Source Software’(FOSS). Then he explained what are FOSS and the importance of them because knowledge has to be shared. Various ways of analyzing data using ‘Open Office Spreadsheet’ was looked into before moving onto ‘ThunderBird e-mail and news client’. Except a few, everyone successfully migrated to thunderbird as their e-mail client on windows by the end of day one.

After getting to know various ‘FOSS on windows’ on the first day, it was time to move completely to Ubuntu on the second day. Anupama introduced the ICD team members to Kannada typing using Open Office Word processor on Ubuntu. The team was really excited to know this as it would help them to type in Kannada or any other language easily. Gurumurthy explained the necessity to use Unicode fonts than Nudi fonts which are proprietary. Anupama explained about ‘Free Mind Map’ which can assist brain storming sessions to ideate and plan better. Anupama assisted everyone to configure thunderbird as their e-mail client on Ubuntu. This was very important to make a complete transition from windows to Ubuntu.

Open Source Software has the ability to do all that we do on Windows and sometimes much more. However, the most impactful day turned out to be the third day. A perfect final assault if you could say so. Bindu presented a new world of applications like KStar, Khangman, Marble, KGeography, K Tech lab and Geogebra. These applications helped the ICD team to know how software applications can be used an aid in teaching. After discovering so many things on Ubuntu which is not proprietary software, everyone was more eager, positive and confident to explore the ICT possibilities in ICD project.

The ICT workshop was concluded drawing a progress map for next 6 months and a detailed plan for 3 years.

Find a schematic plan of the role of ICTs in ICD Project Mandya here.

Leo Tolstoy who had a great influence on M.K.Gandhi called Eiffel Tower as man’s folly while his student Mr. Gandhi said ‘Eiffel Tower shows that men are just like children who get bemused by huge toys’. So we sincerely hope not just to get fascinated by ICT as a new toy. It is most important we look at it as a tool which has got immense strength to play a vital role in social constructivism. All those who have a two wheeler must know that they got a tool kit when they bought vehicle. But how many of us have tried to explore anything little, making use of those tools? So what is it that enables us to make use of tools? Is it our attitude? Is it our knowledge and tool is just an enabler? With many such interesting questions and innumerable opportunities to explore three days romance came to pause.

Girish N R

The objectives of the Teachers Community of Learning (TCoL) programme is two-fold. The first objective is to create an on-line community of teachers to enable them to network, share resources, seek assistance and voice their opinions of education policy and day-to-day school transactions and eventually enable the teachers to see advantage in peer networking, break away from working in isolation and become active participants of the public education system. The second objective is to introduce the teachers to possible ways of effectively integrating ICTs in their regular classroom transactions to enhance the quality of the teaching learning process by helping make the lessons more engaging, active and connected to real life. The larger and long-term objective is to enable professional development of teachers, helping them perceive their roles as active contributors and thereby participate in the overall renewal of the
systems and processes of the government school system.
The TCoL programme adopts a learner-centered approach based on a theory of learning called constructivism, the core ideas being that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, building on the learners existing knowledge and not passively received from the outside. Learning is something done by the learner, not something that is imposed on the learner. The idea is that by the teacher herself experiencing this pedagogical approach, she would more easily be able to adopt it while teaching in her classrooms hence enabling more active and engaging classes .

Workshop Goals

To strengthen the teacher’s capacity to use the internet as a means of communication to enable peer learning, share resources and see advantage in peer-networking. This capacity building will be done in two parts. One, to further enhance their technical capacity by making them more familiar with Kannada typing, learning how to manipulate and manage their emails and mailboxes, and the TCoL web portal. Two, to understand how a discussion may be carried out virtually and to eventually help them understand concepts such as self-reflection, peer-reviewing.

Summary of proceedings

Morning Session
Kannada and English typing
The workshop began with a session on keyboard typing. This was to familiarise teachers who were not used to the computer key board. A free and open source tool called Tux Typing was used for the teachers to practise their typing on. This was followed by a session on Kannada typing using Itrans on SCIM.
We felt that these typing sessions were necessary for the project as once the teachers familiarised themselves with the keyboard, they would feel more comfortable using it. Then emailing, blogging and having online discussions would become simpler for them.

Email Use
The next session covered basics of emailing. All the teachers had email ids except a couple who we made ids for. The teachers were introduced to sending and receiving emails, maintaining folders on e-mail and sending mails using attachments. The difference between an email and an email list was also explained to the teachers. They practised all this using their individual email ids and sending mails and attachments to the email list tcolbangalore@karnatakaeducation.org.in.

Afternoon Session
E-mail Discussion on In-service training
We decided to have a physical discussion on the relevant topic of ‘in-service training’ for the teachers and thus introduce how virtual discussions can take place. The teachers were divided into three groups. Each group was given an individual topic to discuss on, which were the following:
List out the kinds of in-service trainings received. What is your opinion about it?
If you were to design your own training: what would you want, how much training and in what ways would you like to be trained ?
Suggestions on how the current system could be made more effective. Looking at the current trainings in place (group 1’s discussion) and the ideal training programs (group 2’s discussion), how would you like to design a in-service training system that combines the two?

After 10 minutes of discussion each, the groups presented their opinions and a short discussion followed. Each group then composed their discussion points into an email. The first group sent their email to the email list; reading this group 2 replied accordingly and then group 3. The teachers were encouraged to use their language of preference to send these emails (English/Kannada).

Web-portal: Introduction to blogs and discussion forums
The next session was introducing the teachers to the project web-portal bangalore.karnatakaeducation.org.in. Although this had been covered in a previous workshop, we felt that the teachers had not completely understood the usefulness of these tools. Thus in this workshop, we spent more time explaining this to them and them practising on it.
The group conducted a discussion on ‘In-service training’ in the discussion forum on the web-portal. This was followed by a discussion on the differences between a blog and a discussion forum.

Introduction to useful websites
The last session of the workshop was dedicated to sharing some important websites with the teachers for their teaching-learning process. Websites like wikipedia, Kannada wikipedia, other web-portals and some tools in google were introduced to them.

The teachers were also encouraged to buy a personal computer for themselves as this was an important learning tool for them. The teachers did feel the usefulness of this and some of them did they say that they would buy one soon.
Learning Curve newsletters from Azim Premji Foundation on Maths and English were also distributed to the teachers.

Key learnings

Specific uses for email, email list, blog and discussion forum were discussed extensively and all teachers doubts regarding this were explained. Technical and conceptual difficulties were sorted out; so now we feel that teachers have understood and will attempt to use these tools. Feedback from the workshop also suggested that they felt that these tools would be useful for them to share difficulties in their subjects etc.
All teachers were enthusiastic and willing to learn during the workshop. Inspite of being a holiday, 20 of them attended and spent the day exploring these tools. The challenge will now be to see how this interest can be sustained for them to further use these tools and initiate discussions among themselves.

Next steps

The teachers were given two assignments at the workshop. The first was to send an e-mail on any of the topics mentioned below to the e-mail list. The purpose of this is to initiate and sustain a discussion on relevant topics to the teachers. The second assignment is to use the web-portal to write a blog on what they would do during their vacation period.
During the vacation period (till 27th October), some of the teachers will also come to the IT for Change office, practise these tools and other pedagogical ones, work with us to build lesson plans etc.

We acknowledge the support of SSA for providing us with the computer lab and The Policy Planning Unit of Education Department, Government of Karnataka for helping us with the food and other logistics.

8^th September:

The first day of this TCoL workshop was held in GMPS Puttenahalli. It was a conscious move on our part to conduct this workshop in a school as we felt that teachers would be more comfortable and have more ownership over the space.

Session 1: Panel Discussion on “The Right to Education Act”

The first day began with a panel discussion on ‘The Right to Education Act (RTE)’. The panelists for this session were Dr. Archana Mehendale from National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Ms. Suparna Diwakar, Ms. Roopa and Ms. Manjula from Centre for Leadership and Management in Public Services (C-LAMPS). The objectives of this session were to build better understanding of the RTE, including the rules, especially for its implications on schools and teachers, understand teachers views on RTE, including the rules, and highlight their perceptions and ideas, record views of experts on RTE and see how this can be used for wider dissemination. This session was a very interesting one with the teachers participating and giving their inputs and opinion on the RTE. Their discussions are currently being collated and will be submitted to the Karnataka Drafts Rules Committee later this month. Snippets of the video recording can also be used in the future.

Session 2: Basic Hardware awareness and trouble shooting:

The afternoon session was on Hardware and basic trouble shooting. This session was planned as the TCoL teachers had expressed the need to learn more about hardware and practise some basic troubleshooting themselves. They felt the need to be independent of external technical support (which was hard to come across) or atleast they felt that they needed to identify the problem with their computers so that they could explain to the external technical person. The objectives for this session were to understand what a computer is, to familiarise ourselves with its hardware components, to learn to troubleshoot small problems and to develop confidence to diagnose the issue and resolve it. This was a fun session for the teachers as it was hands on and they could open up the CPU with screw drivers and see what was inside. They were happy to hold a RAM chip in their hands and understand what a mother board is. The session also covered various troubleshooting processes to cover before actually calling the technician in. This, the teachers felt was extremely useful.

Session 3: Objectives of a lesson plan and format:

The day ended with a discussion between the teachers and the TCoL team on what all a lesson plan should consist of. The agenda for this session was to discuss what is a lesson plan and its purpose , to understand how lesson plans are being done and the changes that are needed , to demonstrate some well made lesson plans by the teachers. During our school visits and interactions with the teachers, we felt that there was a gap between what an ideal lesson plan should be and what was actually practised in the classroom. As teachers would be preparing lesson plans based on the educational software that they are being trained it, we felt that is was necessary to explain to them the highlights of a good lesson plan, which after being prepared can be demonstrated in the classroom. Hence we planned this session for the workshop.

The day ended with the teachers being split up into three groups (Maths, Science and English). These resource groups would meet individually on the next day of the workshop, brainstorm on various possible uses of ICTs and plan a process in which they could regularly meet and exchange ideas, problems and lesson plans.

9^th September:

On the second day, three workshops were held in three different locations. The Maths teachers met at the IT for Change office, the Science teachers at GMPS Puttenahalli and the English teachers at GUHS Tank Garden. We felt that having such separate workshops would create a better academic environment for teachers to meet, get to know one another and discuss about the teaching-learning process in their subject. The objectives for these workshops and beyond were to develop understanding and competency in subject tools, to share ideas, suggestions and problems related to subject: concept and teaching, to make 2 lesson plans each , to create resource persons and groups amongst teachers, to prepare assignments for next workshop: use tools/net to find more on a concept/ write about it and put on blog, to peer review each other’s lesson plans , to present lesson plans at the cluster level .

The aim of these specific workshops were to introduce teachers to each other, show the various possibilities of ICTs and initiate the process of making a lesson plan. This will be followed by school visits till schools reopen after Dussehra vacations. In these school visits, we will work more closely with teachers, helping them use ICTs for the difficult concepts of their syllabus. Once few lesson plans are prepared and put up on the web-portal the process of peer review will start, which will continue in subject wise workshops as well.

Mathematics Workshop at IT for Change Office

Session 1: Practising the tool (Geogebra)

All the participants were at different levels of competency regarding the usage of the tool : Geogebra. As a result 3 sessions of teaching were happening simultaneously . One of the participants, new to the use of computers, learnt very basic Geogebra and did 2 simple activities. Some of the participants learnt the basic usage of GeoGebra tools, They learnt to demonstrate some basic theorems of triangles and circles. They used the learning material created by IT for Change, as well as the facilitators help to advance to higher levels . Other participants were able to advance to using sliders and create more sophisticated and dynamic lesson plans combining algebra and geometry. A discussion on the difference between drawing and construction in geometry was discussed.

Session 2: Discussing on integrating GeoGebra in the classroom

The afternoon session there was a discussion on how to create effective lesson plans that would combine both chalk and talk and the Geogebra tool.

Session 3: Feedback on the tool

The final session, teachers were ask to write detailed feedback of the workshop and also their future expectations from the programme. Next steps were also discussed. The teachers during the course of the session were also introduced to different reading material , like the NCF position paper on Mathematics and also the Learning Curve from Azim Premji Foundation.

Other than the TCoL teachers, Devaki from Azim Premji Foundation also attended this workshop.

Science Workshop at GMPS Puttenahalli

Session 1: Discussion on “Priya in the Lever Land” (Teacher Plus)

The workshop began by reading out a beautiful story about levers that was published in the Teacher’s plus magazine. The idea behind this activity was to inform teachers about learning in a happy and participatory way. The children would love to learn through stories and this story “Priya in the Lever Land” is a great way of teaching about Levers – a little difficult science concept for the primary school children.

Session 2: Working with science public software educational tools

This activity was followed by KStars and Stellarium – Desktop Planetariums. These tools were used to learn about Solar system and also Eclipses. Kalzium – A chemistry tool was the next to be introduced to the teachers. This tool is to know more about periodic table of chemical elements. It also gives information like atomic mass, melting point, boiling point, isotopes and other chemical features about individual elements. There is also a glossary which enables the teachers to learn important chemical terms. The teachers also learnt about balancing a chemical equation. A physics lab simulator – PhET was the next topic to be introduced to the teacher. This is a web based application (it runs on a web browser, however like other tools; it is also a desktop tool and does not need Internet connectivity). Two experiments, one demonstrating the static electricity and the other demonstrating relationships between volume, pressure and temperature on different states of matter, were simulated using this tool. The teachers also explored many other experiments using PhET.

Session 3: Discussion on NCF Position paper – Teaching of Science

The final session of the day was a group discussion about some topics on the NCF Position paper Teaching of Science. Two teachers were grouped together, and were assigned topics from the position paper to read and then discuss about the same with the others. The topics discussed were Aims of science education, Curriculum at Different stages: Objectives, Content, Pedagogy and Assessment for the primary and upper primary and secondary stage, ICTs in Science education.

Getzi from Development Focus and Lalith Prasad from America India Foundation were also briefly present at this workshop. Getzi enjoyed the story reading session about Levers and Lalith Prasad tried out some simulations using PhET and also Kalzium.

English Workshop at GUHS, Tank Garden

Session 1: Discussion on the NCF Position paper on English

The workshop began with a group reading of the Summary of the National Curriculum Framework Position Paper on English. There was a good discussion that followed on what teachers understood by the paper, how they identified with it and what could they take from it.

Session 2: Discussion on current English teaching methods and possibilities for ICTs integration

This was followed by a discussion on current teaching methods practiced for English teaching-learning in the classroom. All the challenges were pointed out and ICT strategies for combating it were discussed. Overall, there were good points being raised with all teachers participating in this process.

Session 3: Introduction to Educational tools in English

In the next session, teachers were introduced to some free and open source educational softwares which could be useful for teaching English (TuxPaint, Khangman, Kanagram etc). The teachers then prepared lesson plans based on this which was collectively discussed.

Session 4: Introduction and discussion on integrating other ICTs in teaching-learning process

The post lunch session was dedicated to discussing the use of other ICTs. The teachers watched a film prepared by Grace (High School teacher) and brainstormed on various ways they could also do so. The teachers felt the need for learning more about the use of video. Thus one of the next TCoL workshops in November/December would be dedicated to training the teachers on using still camera and video in the classroom.

The teachers were also introduced to some other English software which is being shown in some schools. This is part of the ILID pygmalion program. During the next English resource group workshop, we will try and get a representative from this program to introduce it to the teachers.

The day ended with teachers practicing on the computers, making email ids for themselves. They were also given assignments to prepare one more lesson plan on a topic that they will teach in the classroom. The entire NCF position paper on English was divided among them, which they would read and summarise through email. The date for the next workshop was fixed for 28^th and 29^th of October.

Smt. Prema (BRP of South Block Range 3) attended part of the session. She had very good feedback on the workshop, saying that this was very different from other trainings and she learnt a lot herself. She also suggested that we help set up three cluster resource centres in the block.

]]> http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/10/teachers-community-of-learning-tcol-workshop-of-8th-9th-september/feed/ 0 http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/09/integrating-icts-in-teacher-training/ http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/09/integrating-icts-in-teacher-training/#comments Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:02:42 +0000 admin http://itforchange.net/blog/?p=351

Last Tuesday, Bindu Thirumalai gave a talk in front of D.Ed. principals about the potential of ICTs to enhance teachers’ training, as well as their professional experience through the use of ICTs in the classroom and to build networks with colleagues. Find out more by reading the handout, checking the presentation and reading Bindu’s feedback below.

“The presentation was to address D.Ed. college principals from all over Karnataka. The objective of the presentation was to convey a high level understanding of how ICTs may be used in education in different spheres and focussing on its optimal usage in D.Ed colleges. As the organisers of the workshop pointed out:

‘All D.Ed. colleges are equipped with computers as per NCTE norms. But our study shows that they are grossly underutilised. Our objective of including a one hour session for the Principals is to give them an idea of possibilities of tapping ICT beyond imparting computer skills to students.‘ Mythili Ramchand, PhD, Director, RV Educational Consortium.

Knowing that many of the participants may not have exposure to computers or may be first time users of the technology, I felt that I would at the onset need to briefly demystify concepts such as ICT, Computers and Internet. Then make the participants aware of the dangers of ICTs and hence the importance for educators to become aware of the benefits and pitfalls of using technology. For now, we are at a stage where technology is fast changing our lives and we are past the debate of “whether” we need to use technology and have moved to “how best” we can use it – responsibly and optimally – in education. The latter part of the presentation covered the objectives mentioned above where I explained the use/role of ICTs in administration, pedagogy and professional development.

I was first told there would be 40 principals attending the presentation but on the day, I found out that there would be about 80 principals. If that didn’t make me nervous, I was also told that Kannada would be the preferred language to deliver the presentation. I am fairly fluent in conversational Kannada, but my fluency is not at a level where I can present in front of 80 principals who are proficient Kannada orators!

Notwithstanding my fear of stages, the number of participants, and my language difficulties (my colleague Krittika told me that I actually have improved in how much Kannada I include in my presentations!!), once I began, I was comfortably able to deliver what I set out to do. Making it more interactive by asking the participants their opinions was helpful as well as informative. My reflections would be to simplify the slides both in language and to some extent in content for this audience for a more effective presentation.”

]]> http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/09/integrating-icts-in-teacher-training/feed/ 0 http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/09/solution-exchange-discussion-challenges-of-in-service-teacher-education-and-possible-coping-strategies/ http://itforchange.net/blog/2010/09/solution-exchange-discussion-challenges-of-in-service-teacher-education-and-possible-coping-strategies/#comments Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:07:47 +0000 admin http://itforchange.net/blog/?p=323 Original query

Pre-service teacher development is an important stepping stone for being able to have teachers who are prepared for the task ahead.  In-service programs in that sense have to be linked to them and need to build on what pre-service programs do. In fact in-service teacher education is the major vehicle to carry forward innovation and quality improvement in our school education system.

The Teacher Development and Management Conference held at Udaipur in February, 2009 had in-service development as one of the themes. The conference identified the main strands of in-service teacher development as;

- Need for a variety of routes for teachers to further their professional development.

- Develop a culture of shared learning and accountability such that teachers are not mere recipients of training conceptualized in a top down manner but are engaged with the task to develop their own and the group’s knowledge.

- Need to include the key principle of adult learning in programs of in-service development.

The conference also initiated discussions on different aspects of the in-service teacher development system including its curriculum. In the last few years major in-service training programs have been conceptualized and implemented. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and subsequently Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) have brought in the possibility of continuous capacity building exercise for teachers along with regular academic support through Cluster Resource Centres (CRCs), Block Resource Centres (BRCs) and District Institute of Educational Trainings (DIETs). We need to review this process, the gains, the short comings and share the alternative strategies used at different places including by groups other than govt. We have to review and analyze participation of state level and national organizations in these efforts and the extent to which meaningful progress in design and implementation of the programme of capacity building were made, analyze the scope of participation and involvement of agencies working in education and the availability of capable pedagogues.

In the context of the above ongoing discussion, the following questions seem pertinent

- What needs to be done with the content of in-service teacher with renewed thrust on improving classroom practices and equity and inclusion as per RTE to enable the teacher/s embrace diversity and differentiate instruction for children from disadvantaged groups and to play their collaborative role with School Management Committee (SMC) and Local Authority. This is in the context of the fact that schooling system is today highly fragmented and stratified – and we have to see its implications  for teacher preparation and professionalization

- What could be the approaches that help teachers’ to become reflective practitioners and agents of transformation in their own contexts.

- What are the gaps in the ongoing in-service teacher training programmes and teacher educator preparation efforts to develop concrete recommendations on short/ medium/ long term basis to address those in a systematic manner

- What could be the indicators to track in-service development of teachers and the institutions that house them.

We would also request members to examine systems, mechanisms and modalities to implement quality in-service teacher training, and continuous academic support through various government and alternate structures in order to meet child-friendly, child-centered education provisions of RTE The inputs of the members would be shared in the proposed conference in Bhubaneswar on In service Teacher Training and would facilitate review of the efforts and available opportunities as well as quality of the in-service teacher development. This conference would also attempt at considering the systems and structures for such programs and how they link with the professional preparation, development and functioning of the teachers.

Guru’s answer

Dear Friends,

In my view, the biggest challenge we face in ‘in-service teacher education’ is the conceptualisation or ‘mental map’ of the model for teacher education.

Top-down

In most cases, seeing the ‘large number of teachers’ to be trained, the focus has been on centralised models, where training modules are designed and developed at state capitals and then sought to be implemented across the entire state in a homogenous manner, so much so that the biggest fear here is ‘cascade dilution’. We are familiar with the large size of the trainee groups (even 50+) so as to be able to conduct the program within the expenditure norms allowed, or cases of some teachers repeatedly attending training programs, while others bypass such programs (since the basic reporting is in terms of ‘persondays of training’, an aggregate number that does not reveal such practices).

There is often no process/system in place to capture/record the each teachers own perception/expectations regarding professional growth and development and no engagement with teacher educators/educationists to mentor/develop such expectations. However, in all large organisations in the corporate sector for eg, the drawing of ‘individual learning plans’ (ILPs), in consultation between the employee and his/her supervisor and the HR department is the starting point for development processes. This plan is used regularly to assess the changes in learners needs as well as  help in design of programs. This ILP is an important complementing document to the ‘annual appraisal document’, together serving as a basis for appraisal of the past and planning for the future.

Individual learning plan

We need to begin by having a dialogue with each teacher on what her/his professional needs are and aggregate these (these would be qualitative and would need some kind of rough categorisations to begin with, which categories could be refined over time) at cluster/block levels and then design programs that would meet these needs. The dialogue with the teacher is also to probe/provoke/inform so that the teacher can consider possibilities for development not visualised. These ‘learning plans’ would need to be maintained at individual and aggregate levels at the cluster and block resource centres and updated based on actual programs, with both quantitative and qualitative (including teacher and teacher educator feedback on program) and used for replanning the training programs – to begin with at annual intervals. Thus the AWP (annual work plan) exercise moves from a largely a  number exercise to a more qualitative one, based on actual teacher and teacher educator inputs based on learning/professional development expectations and experiences on actual programs conducted. This also means that we need to move from ‘forced deputation’ of teachers to a cafetaria approach where teachers are invited to apply to a pre-listed set of programs (derived from the collation of ILPs).

If we accept that the most important requirement for adult learning to happen is the interest of the learner, then top down planning of programs would be seen as quite ineffective. This in a sense would help us move from ‘mass teacher training’ to ’self directed teacher professional development’. A simple thumb rule could be that planning for teacher education in terms of curriculum, methods etc needs to be done at levels, where teachers can be refered to by their names rather than seen only as numbers to be ‘covered’. (Just as we require teachers to monitor individual students learning efforts!)

As also suggested earlier, the expenditure norms need to be realistic and flexible, for instance providing for reasonable honoraria to allow for sourcing good faculty, as well as permit residential programs which can provide an environment for intensive learning.

Use of ICTs

While this movement is essential, we also increasingly see it as possible – there have been several pilots/programs at teacher development using such bottom up models. To be able to do this on a larger systemic level, the use of ICTs becomes necessary, in several ways –

- To collate and analyse the data on teacher annual learning plans, teacher and teacher educator feedback on actual training programs

- To help teacher connect with one another and with their teacher educators through learning networks (the USRN project www.ElEdu.net is a good example), so that learning is a continuous activity than a ‘event-based’ (workshops) one alone.

- To help teachers share their experiences and their resources through portals (the USRN, the www.schoolwiki.in of Kerala are examples)

- To publish information about the programs – both financial as well as qualitative feedback for peer and public scrutiny

- Laptops (netbooks) have now come down to Rs. 15,000 a piece and these (with internet connectivity) need to be seen as essential learning tools for teachers. One netbook model that we buy for our staff costs 15,000, weighs less than 1/2 kilo and gives 7+ battery backup, good for wide use. The total one time cost of such netbooks for all the 5.5 million Government school teachers would be  8,250 crores, less than 1/2 of the amount we spend annually on proprietary software licenses in India (see http://www.networkcomputing.in/News-022Sept009-Open-Source-can-help-India-save-10000crore-says-IIM-B-study.aspx ).  We have also encouraged teachers and teacher educators to purchase these netbooks and have installed for them, the Ubuntu operating system with a large set of FOSS educational tools in different subjects which have been used in Kerala schools for the last 7-8 years. Training programs that help teachers access net for learning resources as well as TLMs and to connect with one another need to be a priority. These are no longer luxuries for teachers, they simply are the most powerful learning tools today which need to be made available to all.

Our own small efforts with teachers (through our ‘Teachers Community of Learning’ in Bangalore), to build their capacities to use ICTs have been rewarding due to our focus on teachers’ articulated needs rather than any pre-conceived ideas we have about what ‘all’ of them want/need. Many teachers are hungry as well, but we need to invest to listen to what they are saying, and then respond.

Regards,

Gurumurthy Kasinathan

- To introduce teachers and department officials to the program’s goals and processes.
- To identify the interested teachers for the project.
- To brainstorm with them on possible strategies for using ICTs in Education.
- To introduce them to the basics on computer use and the possibilities of ICT based education

The workshop was held on 13^th and 14^th of September, 2010 at Church Hall, Station Bazaar Road, Yadgir. The participants were Mathematics and Science high school teachers from Yadgir block. The rationale for deputation of these teachers included: basic proficiency in computer use, teach Maths and Science, interest in learning more on ICTs in Education.

Around 30 teachers participated on the first day of the workshop and around 35 different teachers on the second day.

The agenda followed for the workshop was to introduce them to the different uses of a computer, give them an introduction of the project as well as the pilot done in Bangalore. The afternoon session comprised of explaining to them what a computer was, its components and basic operating system use. They were then introduced to some educational software on Maths and Science. Information on some useful websites was also shared with them. The feedback on both days was positive with participants showing their interest in the program and also feeling the need for computers in their teaching process.

On both days the participants were told that only those interested could be part of this project and hence those not interested were to give their names so that they would not be deputed in the future.

The participants were encouraged to buy a computer for themselves to promote and develop their own learning. They were also encouraged to buy copies of the National Curriculum Framework (2005) position papers. Many of the participants also bought copies of the Ubuntu operating system and FOSS on Windows.

A pre test form was filled by the participants which will be collated and used during the project. Information on infrastructure of the school and stakeholder needs has also been collected. This data will be used to plan the project. The participants decided on the dates for the next workshop to be 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th September. As they expressed need for basic computer literacy, this will be the agenda for the workshop. This will be followed by workshops in November and January on Maths and Science.

It brings in some elements that pertain to the structural changes effected by digital technologies and the emergent information society, based on our work at IT for Change (http://www.itforchange.net/). We work on the interfaces between the current techno-social architecture of society and development, focusing broadly on the thematic areas of gender, governance and education.

Of deep significance to the changing politics of state-citizen relations is the impact of digital technologies on society.  The emerging public sphere complicates governance structures, claims-making processes, representation and participation as well as the very nature of deliberative democracy. These changes are gendered, and require a rethinking of women’s citizenship and rights.

IT for Change, through its Centre for Community Informatics and Development (CCID), have been working with the sangha women of Mahila Samakhya Karnataka (MSK),  to enable them to use Information and Communications Technology (ICTs) in their endeavours. The idea has been to embed ICTs within the heart of their struggles for citizenship, so that the agenda is not to have some stand-alone experiment with technology but to explore what kinds of processes can bring about a quantum change in the way they anyway make their claims and chart their struggles for gender justice.

The results of a 5 year long engagement with MSK and MSK sanghas has been a phenomenal journey for us – demonstrating why digital technologies need to be ascribed a certain meaning and deployed with a certain vision if our goal is to enable women to assert their rights.

Women have been running community telecentres; gone on air discussing the gram sabha and the elections; they have demanded that CCID work with them on garage production videos. This helps them talk to their communities about how to get a bank loan; why adult literacy camps are life changing; and how young girls can be part of the process of social transformation (and not just wait to be married off). The informational culture of questioning and of transacting power through knowledge brokerage (that is not the usual commercial model but based on equity and social justice considerations), have led to cascading changes – a new legitimacy for women, who were rather peripheral to the everyday life of the community.  It makes for a new local socio-economic reality as well as a new political status for these women.

We have learnt much about how there is empowerment and there is empowerment; one version that challenges status quo and brings into local discourse the disturbing question of power and the other that builds upon local elite structures to enable just as much trickle-down as will keep the dominant structures happy.

Our model has taught us that ICTs are the harbingers of citizenship. They are the ‘summum bonum’ of social inclusion in the information society, so long as the emerging local informational democracy – with women’s radio programs, women-run telecentres and women’s appropriation of video as a meaning-making tool – can be nurtured through an ethical digital system that wants democracy and social justice.

What do we mean by this? IT for Change in its global and local work has come to realise that the propensity of new technologies within dominant frameworks seems to promote a version of short-term empowerment that in fact consolidates the social power of the elite. I want to bring to the table two strands of thought that can add contemporariness to the upcoming PRIA seminar on 08 September 2010.
The Informational State:

We need to deconstruct and understand better, the nature of the neo-liberal state, which is also the informational state.  State power is consolidated through informational systems that promote techno-managerialism in governance, rather than an increased transparency that may seem apparent.  E governance is less about transparency and institutional reform, and more about Management Information System (MIS) that is deemed gender neutral. Which is why, the telecentres run by MSK women is qualitatively different – it is about institutionalising a culture of information that can privilege the marginalised.

Despite efforts to promote women’s participation in implementing e-governance schemes, the cooption of women in such strategies is built more or less on the idea of the neo-liberal state, which would like to see women as consumers of information and as economic agents at the fringes of public private partnerships (PPPs) as telecentre operators. Any empowerment that occurs is purely incidental in many mainstream ICT efforts. While the rhetoric of inclusion through the digitisation processes in governance seems to suggest potentially easier and greater access of the marginalised to entitlements, the centralised managerialism in these projects leaves out any possibility for a localised institutional design. Where is the room in these efforts for a simple video that talks about what schemes the local social welfare department has for the dalits or a simple radio broadcast on the meaning of a gramsabha. Marginalised women’s access to public resources and participation in the public sphere needs to be enhanced for their active citizenship and can be enhanced through ICTs, but not if the design is a top-down make-what-you-will kind of model that pushes for information commoditisation through a pay-for-your-rights approach.

Flagship information and digitisation projects seem to ignore cultural issues around identity and privacy. The information state repositions freedom, rights and regulation from the vantage of macroeconomics and value-chains, which undermines rights of rural and tribal communities while privileging corporate “rights”.  Solly Benjamin wrote about Bhoomi (land), and pointed how all the information out there about land holding in the public domain is rather useful for land sharks.

The informational state needs to be grasped for the complexity it unleashes into a hyper-politicised society like ours. Framed within a political system whose nexus with media and local elite structures transforms governance into a murky terrain that is impossible for the marginalised to negotiate, the informational state can fossilise older power structures and create new exclusions. The MSK women have had to deal with vested interests in the panchayat and in the local infomediary structures who have tried many tricks to silence them. It is the power of the sangha and the backing of the Kelu Sakhi radio program that the sangha women run that allows for a counter-power for the women to deal with the cultures of patriarchal and casteist repression.

The main conclusions of Sandra Braman’s book on the informational state may be relevant and even revealing – power seems to get more centralised in the informational state, which  “increasingly knows more about individual citizens but, on the other hand, the individuals know less and less about the state”.  The use of digital technologies can limit, instead of broadening, the possibilities for significant participative democracy, where the conceptual focus is more on what has been critiqued by other researchers as the shift from deliberation to push-button- and point-and-click- decision systems that give legitimacy to authoritarian leadership that manipulates public opinion.

The citizenship of women and their relationship with institutions of the state in the emerging governance systems are predicated upon various preconditions – at the least it depends on how the information design treats public interest, women’s accessibility and capability. Such a design must be open to enable citizen rights and freedoms, invest in the literacy women need to read and decipher the grammar of new informational cultures. Women do decode the digital with great ease but to be citizens of the informational statę,  they need time and resources to understand how also to evolve corresponding digital cultures.

Therefore, even with the promise of e-governance for inclusion and transparency and access to public information, the logic of the informational state needs to be seen as embedding risks that are hidden and historically unprecedented.

The changing nature of democracy

The active citizen cannot get more active today; welcome, the information society. Especially for women, the ability to storm into the public sphere and be part of public discourse does open up the possibility of new everyday practices in citizenship. Through access to local media spaces, creating media that brings into the public realm perspectives and practices and rationalities that challenge the mainstream, women are able to redefine social action. Voice, agency and assertion are transformed through digital space and certain pluralism arises in the nature of gendered discourse. This can be enormously liberating for marginalised women and a step towards inclusive citizenship, but we need again to be alert to the changes to the very institution of democracy in the era of e-voting, face book-citizenship and public hearings of social issues on TRP-obsessed, corporate-owned media channels. Each episode of social discrimination appears and disappears from the digitally mediated public sphere with a routine that is deeply disturbing. Participation acquires a new meaning in spaces that are wide open, unmediated and ostensibly egalitarian; you can be a citizen journalist and tell your story now, in fact you need not even be that! Authenticity counts most, plurality is possible now, and it does not matter that in most public platforms – from e-lists to online consultations to seductive appeals on FM to send your vote by SMS, - every private rationale is equally valid.  Digital openness enhances participation no doubt, but with a logic that is not necessarily based on representative or deliberative democracy but rather, on self-interest and corporate profit in the absence of governance mechanisms that can intercede to support active deliberation and a consensus based on ethical frames.  ‘Public’ platforms online are controlled by corporates that arrogate to themselves the right to perform adjudicatory functions. First, in such ‘democracies’, the marginalised are not represented. Secondly, current legal, policy and institutional arrangements do not extend to online spaces to mediate power and communicative asymmetries.

Even if it seems like the discussion here is not so pertinent to the women about whose rights most of us may be concerned, the horizon of social change directly and indirectly incorporates the digital in a deep and meshed way. In most developing country contexts, informationalism and digitisation are at the forefront of governance reform. What may be feudal and dysfunctional is at the risk of being replaced by a new age system that renders redundant all our studies and researches by complicating reality in profound ways. Democracy is not only the mess we are used to; it is reshaped by the new geographies shaped by the digital that are transnational, trans-local and hence as exciting for the tyrannical structures they bypass as they are perilous for the post-democratic influences they bring in the form of undecipherable and ungraspable practices of the new digital elite.

The key issues raised in the mails are: the term Public Software is a distortion of FOSS and takes away the key principle of freedom implied in FOSS; and that using these terms in a somewhat overlapping manners causes confusion and introduces a new agenda which is harmful to the FOSS movement and its goals.
Narendra called it a ‘altogether new agenda’. Yes, it is indeed a relatively new agenda, though proceeding from the same old agenda (while we are it, maybe we need to revisit and have a discussion on what our basic agendas are). Therefore whether it is a ‘altogether’ new agenda may need to be debated. Further, though we are convinced that the two agendas are mutually reinforcing – it may still be useful to discuss here whether the public software agenda is prejudicial to the FOSS agenda.
The underlying rationale of the two concepts are different and need to be understood so that we have clarity on both. That would be a good basis of a continued discussion on this important subject.
What is public software
The point of departure for articulating, and for understanding, the concept of public software is the concept of ‘public goods’ or commonly shared goods, as against private and commercially traded goods in a society. What are the implications of ‘public goods’ thinking and requirements vis-a-vis the digital society? While this question merits close attention, unfortunately it has not received that attention, for a variety of reasons.
We can construct a response to this question in two parts.
1.How digital possibilities can be best applied for production/ provisioning of existing (pre-digital) public goods?
2.What new public goods, in the form of entitlements to digital possibilities, now become relevant in the digital age?
The first aspect of the emerging ‘public goods – digital society’ dynamic is about what kind of digital resources should be used by actors involved with providing traditional or pre-digital era public goods – basic health, education, livelihood support, security etc; and in what manner, in order to maximise the basic/ original objective of providing these pre-digital public goods.
The second aspect is about universal provision of such digital goods and services which can be seen as the ‘new public goods’ of the digital age. Participating in the digital society requires that basic applications such as operating systems, editors, web browsers, screen readers be seen as ‘public goods ‘ from which no one ’should’ be excluded, and thus whose universal availability is a societal responsibility.
(Apologies for a brief digression here. It is important to understand in what implications the term ‘public goods’ is being used here. The term is originally from economics, whereby it means such goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Non-excludable means, from which no one can be excluded. And non-rivalrous means that consumption of the good by one does not reduce its supply for the other. However, in its larger social meaning the term ‘public goods’ is used to mean goods from which no one ’should’ be excluded, whether they by their nature are non-excludable and non-rivalrous or not. On the positive side, digital goods are inherently non-rivalrous. However, on the negative side, the digital phenomenon enables new means of exclusion which may not exist earlier – for instance broadcast versus DTH TV. These characteristics complicates the digital ‘public goods’ discussion, but more on that some other time )
It is in this overall ‘public goods’ ecology that the concept of public software takes birth and is situated. Now since, a lot of objections on the list to the concept of ‘public software’ has been of the logical variety, challenging the very validity of the concept, I hope the above, and the following, discussions answers those objections. If not, I am willing and eager to discuss it further.
What is FOSS
The logic of FOSS arises differently. It came from the idea that locking down knowledge is essentially wrong in curtailing both freedom and opportunities of people. The knowledge embedded in software therefore should be freely accessed by all, and also be able to be used freely to develop more knowledge/ software. To this idea of freedom, the genius of Stallman added a brilliant new dimension. It is only freedom if it multiplies freedoms of others rather than curtail it (which is in fact adding a ‘positive’ element to the otherwise ‘negative’ – as in negative rights – conception of freedom). He very cleverly used the legal framework around proprietisation of knowledge (to which the basic idea of freely shareable knowledge is in fact prima facie antithetical) to posit an enforceable legal condition – anyone will be able to freely use free software knowledge only if any further knowledge produced by using this knowledge is also available freely. In fact this legal condition can be said to curtail the ‘freedom’ of the person creating some new knowledge using the old free software knowledge (the freedom to to keep this new knowledge created by him as private). But well, that is it, take it or leave it. This provision was expressly made for furthering the cause of common digital knowledge, a public good.
Convergence and divergence
Here, one can clearly begin to see the convergence between two concepts of FOSS and of software as and for public good (public software). One may even be tempted at this point to jump to the conclusion that public software is FOSS and vice versa. Well, it is ‘almost’ always so. But since the two concepts have clearly different constituent logics – even if practical convergence – it is ‘logically’ possible that there may be cases where FOSS is not public software and vice versa. A couple of examples used in the quoted write up on public software were made just to present this ‘logical’ though rare, if ever, possibility. (The exception was cited as an attempt to prove the rule.) Though an example like the one used, and much criticised on the list, of use of software for some extremely secretive purposes but serving public interest, would always be open to contestation. But as said, the point was only to provide a possible example showing the logical distinction, which comes from the very different logical construction of the two concepts. It is however possible that some other examples may be better than the one used in the quoted text.
It is certainly at least ‘logically’ possible that there could be (some extremely rare) times when a software needed to be used in ‘public good space’ may best not be FOSS. This can and will be contested, but most people traditionally in the public goods space (not only governments but also outside it), whom we have spoken with, understand it in this way. Lets accept that. On the other hand, a software can have its source code open, but its design may be directed towards ways of stealing personal information or for triggering mines (banned under a global treaty) as a person approaches them, which though obviously FOSS (because FOSS is about open publication of the source code and the underlying licensing condition and strictly nothing else) can not be called a public good software, or public software.
Why we need the term ‘public software’
If FOSS and Public Software are mostly the same, then the question would come, why should we have two different terms then. The reason is somewhat obvious. There is a big sector in society long devoted to the ‘public goods space’ which understands the idea and concept of public good much better than that of FOSS, which, I may be excused for saying, is often thought by them as a technical obscurity that will never be of much interest to them. (I agree, this may not be completely true, but that is how they feel). Now this ‘public goods sector1′ is a serious business, a big and necessary part of our social arrangements. They need to understand, and internalise in their work, the role of software in the digital society. And they will best understand it, and do what is necessary to do thereafter, if it is presented in the ‘public goods’ framework which they not only understand but take it to be their serious responsibility to work on.
But it will be wrong to tell these ‘public good’ actors that FOSS was always meant to be the ‘public goods software’ or ‘public software’ and that the two are exactly the same, because that would be unfair to both this group and the FOSS groups. As mentioned earlier, there is a clear logical distinction between the two concepts even if a very large practical overlap.
If those involved traditionally with public goods space or sector in the society find it useful to use the concept of ‘public software’, why should they not be able to do so? Public software is defined in terms of its public good nature, inherent in the outcomes arising from its use. ‘Logically’ it has nothing to do with publishing the source code or the nature of copyright licence involved, though it is quite clear that publishing the software and using a GPL licensing will almost always serve the best interests of the public. On the other hand, FOSS is ‘logically’ only about publishing the code and copyrighting under GPL licence and it has nothing to do with the purpose for which the software may be used – which in fact could be quite destructive, and whereby the software cannot be called public software. In fact, FOSS being GPL licensing condition based concept will exclude software released in the public domain. However the concept of ‘public software’ could include such software it is best qualifies the conditions of ‘public good’ in the given circumstance.
This above was about the logical basis of the term ‘public software’ and the distinctions as well overlaps involved vis a vis the concept of FOSS. Now we can move to practical matters. Even if logically defensible, an obvious question is, why should or did we expend so much energy in developing and promoting the concept of public software.
Public software – the practical imperative
It has mostly to do with having encountered great difficulties in promoting FOSS among public sector agencies (which agenda we found very important per se, as well as to promote the overall cause of FOSS in society), and less than satisfactory progress in promoting it with academic institutions, NGOs and community based bodies. Through these experiences we realised that these agencies responded so much better if engaged through notions of publicness and welfarism vis-a-vis different software models. For instance government officials engage so much better if we start with the objectives of the work of the government and of her particular department, and then extend the characteristics of the public goods work she is involved with to the kind of software that should be used by her/ governments.
Similarly, in discussions with government school teachers, we find that it is intuitive for them to grasp the idea of software as a basic learning resource that should be free, and a universal entitlement. They are also immediately attracted to the idea that the learning software be produced and supported by public interest groups/ bodies rather than commercial ones, whereby instinctively there is greater trust. It is then easier for the teachers to relate to the fact that since the interests and motivations of the public interest/ goods actors (or public actors) are only to help them, the software has all the qualities that makes their and students work easier and education more fruitful. They then relate to the features of the such software as its openness to modification, sharing etc as the way they see normal public education processes. Using the term ‘public software’ (accessible to all, involving participation of all) seems to them quite aligned with the underlying philosophy of the public school system (accessible to all, involving participation of all). At this point, they can of course be explained the production and licensing model underlying the software they are using, and why it is called FOSS. Frankly, starting with the license model of the software they are going to be introduced to, makes little sense to them.
Principles of universal access, full inter-operability, not getting exclusively dependent on a private vendor for any government (or public education) process, collaborative building of governance processes (including digital ones, and software is nothing but structuration of such social/ governance processes), principle of transparency, of community monitoring, right of information, full and perpetual public ownership etc are clearly understood by public sector actors. It is easy to argue with them that same principles should apply to software used by and in the public sector. We could also easily agree mutually to call such variety of software as ‘public software’ as opposed to commercial software used for commercial sectors of the society with completely different contexts and objectives.
By emphasising that the starting point for public software is the role of the public sector, (including the government) for the purposes of achieving larger societal goals of equity and social justice, we could even get down to write principles for public software, which public officials clearly could own (rather than FOSS principles which looks to them coming from areas largely alien to them). We could speak together of coming out with a public software policy, which would simply list what would be the characteristics of software that governments should produce/procure and use (in terms of public service principles listed above). Within this larger advocacy it was much easier to argue that FOSS is the right kind of software for governments to use, and that this fact should specifically be mentioned in the public software policies. In these discussion we, the government officials and us – seemed to be going forward together, collaboratively, in a manner that the agenda and discussions were co-owned.
This unfortunately mostly does not happen when we take the FOSS agenda – direct and simple – to government officials, since, many tend to treat software per-se as a ‘technology issue’ which is best dealt with by technology experts or IT associations – see for instance the role that NASSCOMM, a industry body with vested interests, plays in many e-governance processes, including at the policy level2. They tend to treat FOSS as just one kind of software model which can be considered beside other proprietary, models. They start talking about ‘overall’ cost implications and performance factors as the ‘obvious’ key factors for taking the software procurement decisions. The ideology involved, which motivates the FOSS advocate, is largely lost on non-techie public sector actors.
Public Public Partnerships
Beyond governments, there are many social actors who involve themselves in production/ provisioning of public goods. FOSS groups are one such set of social actors. All kinds of voluntary, community groups are examples of such social actors. However, we will have to accept that the state or governments are a very big part of this ecology of social actors producing public goods. Unlike other actors involved in this process, governments, especially democratic/ welfarist ones, uniquely also have the ‘responsibility’ for producing these goods (and for this reason, the other groups in the public goods ecology are often called ‘voluntary’ groups3).
It is a part of what has been called the ‘deepening democracy’ project to work towards larger partnerships and programs in the public policy as well as public goods space, involving non-state actors working with government’s in a mutually supportive and complementary manner, whereby these relationships are characterised by trusts and mutual respect, though the elements of dissent and even antagonism on many socio-political issues need not be completely forgone. It is even more important in the digital space, with its unique collaborative and distributed system management capacities, that we seek to build partnerships among all the public interest or public goods actors. It is perhaps impossible to sustain even FOSS ecologies beyond a point without some kind of institutional public support – whether of a big NGO or a government agency. On the other hand, governments on their own are not upto the task of making and maintaining the best public software needed to maximise public interest opportunities in our society – especially of ensuring that the egalitarian and social justice potential of digital technologies is in fact realised.
The ‘news’ of Oracle stopping support for ORCA development illustrates this case. There were mails on the FOSSCOMM list that we should write to Oracle to continue its support to ORCA development4, but what is Oracle’s accountability to us. (That is the basic difference between a private/commercial actor and a public actor.) Since for the visually challenged, a screen reader is basic to their participation in the digital society, it needs to be an entitlement and not contingent on corporate social responsibility or voluntary effort. By definition for anything to be an entitlement or a right, there needs to be a corresponding societal commitment or obligation to ensure that right is fulfilled. And this requires the positive/committed action of the government/public sector as the primary societal agent for development and even democracy. This notion of public software thus puts the onus on governments to ensure universal availability of such basic applications, through funding, distribution, promotion etc. However, use of this concept of ‘public software’ also draws all other social actors motivated towards public interest to collaborate as well as they can for universal provision of such public goods.
What Brazil’s Public Software Centre has been doing for past few years, is along these lines – creating collaboration between government entities and FOSS enterprises/ communities to develop public software to promote governance goals. We need to build similar collaborations in India and that is one of the principal goals of our work.
It is important to note that our work on public software arose from our own experiences in advocating FOSS in governments and schools and took shape independent of the Brazil project. (We learnt about the Brazil project much later, after the Kochi workshop, where the public software site was launched). Neither for the Brazilian agency involved, nor for us, the idea and concept has taken complete shape and is largely work in progress. We invite feedback and comments in this process.
However we are convinced that there are very useful possibilities in using this concept for both the public sector and for the FOSS community.
regards,
Guru