[Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project

[Sanford Forte]

> > Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out
> > of the textbook production business.
> >
> > It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the
state
> > to do this itself.

> I will not support any effort to do anything of that nature.  That
> sounds like a completley horrible idea, and I would speak at length to
> the legislature (if they would listen to me) in opposition.

> > 1) Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12
> > textbook production.
>
> I support this, although there's no reason for new legislation to
> do that.
-----------
All, (and Jimbo)

This is unfortunate, because it's based on misunderstanding.

I will respond here as best I can, as the meat of Jimbo's reservations are
gone into on another post (privately) to me. I will answer his post - I hope
to his satisfaction.

There would be in California, if California chose to sponsor the physical
publishing of the book. I've explained why in earlier posts.

Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher,
other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money,
otherwise.

Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content - would
have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive costs up, not
down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the system works, in
textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that business.

> > 2) Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open
source
> > content) by the state.
>
> I'm deeply opposed to this alternative.  The state has absolutely no
> business being involved in the production of textbooks, and this would
> virtually guarantee the elimination of all the possible cost savings
> that you're pitching.
----------------
How is that?

Here is some rational. It's all in the model that I posted to the list.

some comments:
I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In the model
I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the primary savings realized
from a state-sponsored textbook publishing 'business' would be marketing,
royalties, and carried inventory.

If California was willing to pony up the cash (to itself, not to me) to
perform the physical production of its own textbooks, (given certain
licensing schemes), they would have been able to charge a slight premium
back to other states for content that *California* had paid to develop,
independent of commercial publishers. This reverse licensing procedure would
save other states 100's of millions of dollars (realizing somewhere between
90-95% of the savings that California realizes).

However, *if* Wickipedia were to develop the textbook, under the GNU FDL
license, the picture changes slightly. Also, certain inefficiencies appear.

Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that book to
the California board, and the board approves it. *Then* (under the GNU
license) California could decide to publish itself (if it so chose), or
commercial publishers could enter the fray, use the Wickipedia content, and
compete on price for the end product (the textbook).

That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model, but I have
no problem at all with it. However, what this will mean is that certain
inefficiencies will get becak into the pricing model. As long as commercial
publishers *compete* with each other for business that the state can render
itself, prices will be higher to the state. These commercial firms will be
competing for state business, and all the huckstering, marketing,
conventions, etc. would continue. Note that 20-30% of the cost of a textbook
comes from competitive marketing.




> > The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony
> > up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books.
>
> Good grief!  I'm horrified.
--------------
Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in order to
remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The commercial publishers,
currently 'owning' the model of textbook production, create cost and content
inefficiencies. Why should thi sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for
taxpayers to get their money's worth?

YOur comments point in a direction that is completely opposite to what I've
intended.

In fact, under the
original model (using Connexions [at Rice U.]), there would be "content
bins" for every
chapter of every curricular area. There would be multiple textbooks
available (in fact, as many as possible) through open source that met the
frameworks standards. Thus, the districts could choose whatever book, and/or
approach, met their fancy.

To points about cost overruns, the process would keep those to a minimum,
because there would be no marketing, royalty, or inventory numbers to fudge.
It would be very straightforward - in this way: here's the content, here's
what it cost to print, do you want it? Case over.
Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if necessary, would
bring the print cost way down. (It's a fact that university math books in
the US that sell for over $100MSRP sell for less than $10 (real $$) in
places like India, printed on cheaper stock, in paperback.)

To points about limited choice by teachers and districts, I've answered
some of that (above). Also, realize that one of the primary goals of COSTP
is to *include* more teacher-related content in the process. It's in the
model I posted.


> You really need to change your mind on this aspect of things, as it
> completely undermines everything that you're trying to do, and has a
> huge number of negative side-effects as well.
----------
There are no negative side effects. They only exist if you assume the state
owns the content, which under the GNU license, and via the WIckipedia
publishing model, the state wouldn't. However, consider - again, looking ta
the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership (don't
flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's *anything* but
that!)

> I protest in the strongest possible terms, and have no interest in
> helping with this aspect of your project.
----------
Why? The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers,
students, teachers, etc.), give other states an opportunity to share in the
bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English,
etc. It's in the model. What's wrong with that?

One of the things that I've had to battle over the two years that COSTP has
been in existence is having everyone - on all sides - understand that it's
in the best interests of the end users of the product (textbooks) to have
them created in open source.

I hope this helps, and that everyone understands that any books created
under GNU, by Wickipedia, would *not* be owned by California.

Now, most of our kids are in public schools. They get crappy textbooks, some
don't get any textbooks because their districts are too poor (it happens,
even in California), the schools are overcharged by publishers, creating
massive opportunity cost penalties for school districts, etc.

The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by anyone.
That's a difference in the original model, but be warned that it will cost
students and taxpayers more money than a program owned by one (or more)
states, designed to create content efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will
still save money, and create better content, and cost less than current
books - but the price efficiencies won't be as dramatic

You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts of the
model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable, depending on
where the money to publish comes from.

The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers), give
other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal
organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model.

Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would own the
content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the Wickipedia operation,
the state would not own the content, but would (as I understand it) realize
*some* of the pricing benefits (but not all of them), because come of the
"cost-of-goods-sold" would be removed by the fact that the content
originates in open source.

I would urge you to call me to straighten this out.

Look, we're on the same side. We may differ how best to get to the end
goal - using open source to benefit *people*, but that's the goal for COSTP.
This is a pure effort, aimed at helping people, and helping to deliver what
I consider to be the ultimate promise of technology - that is: more, for
less, for everyone.

Sanford



> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l