Never mind the technology, where’s the learning?

In my last post I predicted the demise of many UK education software companies. In this post I want to expand a little on this theme by proposing five reasons why this might happen:

1. Over-reliance on government regulation and subsidy by users and providers

At the dawn of educational computing back in the early 1980s, computer systems were proprietary, and the UK led the way in education systems - two companies dominated through government regulation (schools could only buy UK hardware from an approved list), and this led to the birth of a UK education software industry and the production of software through government grant. This niché lasted until the demise of Acorn in the late 1990s, and the lost of a specific hardware platform whose market was geared to education. It was at this point that a number of educational software companies failed to make the transition, others consolidated, and some adapted. This smaller group of companies tripped into the noughties and were given the lifeline of further subsidy in Curriculum Online (COL) which come to an end this August. COL was all about providing ‘curriculum content’ rather than tools, although some strange interpretations of this rule crept in due to user pressure. With a National Curriculum, it became obvious that competition was defined by ‘content’, particularly content that was statutory. Content was indeed ‘king’. Many older software houses used COL to sell their back-catalogue rather than necessarily develop new material. The result was overload and stagnation. After all, only so many titles on a Science topic can be sold before schools end up with un-used titles on shelves. The situation today is that schools probably have all the electronic content they need, and a lot more besides.

2. Not changing distribution method

You would think that the term, “Curriculum Online” would suggest that content was indeed online. However, this is far from the truth. Most content bought with e-learning credits is distributed on CD ROM, or perhaps DVD ROM, and either runs from that media or is installed on the local machine or school server. While the world was going Web 2.0, there were a few UK educational companies doing the same with applications. The exception being companies like J2E and rather belatedly Softease and 2Simple. One can understand why educational software houses have failed to react quickly enough to a different route to market, when the traditional route was reinforced by COL.

3. Following, not innovating

The UK educational software industry used to be a place of innovation, where innovation drove the competition. Once content began to drive competition, then innovation took a back seat. The COL market became the UK market, and there was little incentive to innovate. At the same time, innovation using Web 2.0 technologies began to flourish globally. Good educational software, as I’ve said before, “does one thing well, and excels at that purpose”, and the “long tail” products with educational merit that began to appear on the web are not produced by UK educational companies. The Web 2.0 type products that have been produced are either online versions of traditional applications, with sharing added, or are versions of concepts that already exist, such as blogging or podcasting. I don’t see the equivalent of Voicethread produced in the UK for educational purposes.

4. Allowing early adopters to go elsewhere

Today, early adopter-educators are using web 2.0 tools, usually for free, in their classrooms. The cutting edge is not with UK educational software suppliers anymore. Your early adopters are your trend setters. If they move elsewhere, so does your long term market. As Web 2.0 tools develop that provide teachers with the ability to mash-up what they need to deliver the curriculum, then even supplying content will dry up.

5. Not creating a new business model

Alongside changing the distribution method, comes the way in which your business model works. The traditional educational software market in the UK has always been cushioned from global market forces. There’s was the traditional route to market using traditional media, government subsidy, and a national content focused curriculum. Things have now changed, the internet and ubiquitous access has meant that both the route to market and the distribution media has changed, COL ends with no likelihood of further subsidy to maintain a closed system, and changes to the National Curriculum will slowly erode its content focus. The biggest thread of all comes with a Web 2.0 business model which at its base is free at the point of delivery. The last, but in my view vain, hope is the e-safety issue. Blocking of online services in the name of e-safety, and the production of ‘walled-garden’, mimics of online services, seems to create a possible market, but are built on the negative rather than positive view of Web 2.0. At best this is a temporary solution, as e-safety is not an education but a society issue, which will eventually must be solved by society not educationalists.

Image credit: Chuck Schneider