Policy expectations for transparent implementation of open educational resources

In 2012, consideration of open educational resources must take account of the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 and the responsibilities it places before education systems. Oversight of the implementation question should reflect the principle that the significance of the present development lies in implementation: public commitments require an identifiable allocation of authority, resources and accountability. The central concern is how the relevant decisions affect learners, institutions and the proper use of public or entrusted resources. The appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility.

Failure in relation to the relevant measure may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include inaccessible resources, unclear permission to reuse or adapt, confusion between participation and recognised achievement, and uncertain responsibility for learner support. Review should consider whether an exception is prolonged, recurring or capable of affecting learners outside the cases examined.

Purpose and present context

Implementation of open educational resources should be organised around a decision that can be tested. In reviewing the policy matter, oversight should test whether formal commitments are reflected in decisions, resource allocation, provider conduct and accessible routes for review. Resources and activity should be reconciled with the operating evidence and result for which the responsible function is accountable.

The instrument identified by the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides a formal policy reference for the policy matter. Its text, scope and institutional status should be distinguished from later implementation measures and from voluntary provider commitments. Authorities should state which elements are already operative, which require national action and which serve as guidance. This distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.

The 2012 Paris OER Declaration calls on states to foster awareness and use of openly licensed educational resources, support enabling policy and infrastructure, strengthen capacity, encourage adaptation and promote research and sharing. Open licensing addresses permission to retain, reuse or adapt material; it does not by itself establish accuracy, accessibility, curricular suitability or the status of any assessment or award.

A focused examination of the implementation question requires a clear analytical discipline. In reviewing the relevant measure, implementation requires more than dissemination. Responsible actors must understand the change, receive the authority and resources to apply it, and be able to identify cases that require advice, exception or escalation. An imprecise scope or measure may produce a credible-looking record that does not answer the relevant decision question.

• State whether assessment or credit is available and retain evidence sufficient for independent review.
• Monitor use without overstating learning within a defined period and review the result.
• Provide correction routes, including material exceptions and unequal effects.
• Verify rights before publication, including material exceptions and unequal effects.
• Maintain or withdraw outdated material before any material decision relies on it.

The substantive quality question

Care is required in drawing conclusions about open educational resources. In reviewing the implementation question, availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. For the policy matter, a policy direction should not be presented as a uniform legal obligation where national implementation differs. Providers remain responsible for identifying the requirements that apply to their own activities. A finding should not be separated from limitations capable of changing how it is understood or applied.

Assurance of the implementation question should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include academic and technical review, licence and provenance records, correction and withdrawal controls, version and maintenance information, and clear statements on support and assessment. Assurance should compare the documented arrangement with its operation and learner effect. System-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event.

Records relating to the policy matter should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. The correction record should state what the new evidence changes and which earlier conclusions or decisions require review. The correction process should identify prior users and decisions where published information has had material effect.

Information required for oversight

For operational review of open educational resources, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the affected arrangements should translate the policy objective into controlled procedures and decision criteria, prepare affected staff and learners, test readiness, monitor early cases and correct ambiguity promptly. Review whether implementation differs across sites or delivery partners. Findings should state the affected scope and required action; an observation should not be represented as evidence of conformity or effectiveness.

The implementation record for the issue should identify the instrument being applied, its status, the competent authority, the affected jurisdiction and the action expected of each responsible body. Legal obligation, policy position and institutional response should each retain their proper status. A staged implementation record should set out transition dates, interim safeguards and the readiness review point.

• What do early cases show?
• Have affected users received clear information?
• Are responsibilities and resources in place?
• What operational decision changes?
• Where is implementation inconsistent?

Matters requiring continuing review

The system and institutional dimensions of open educational resources should be considered together. The analysis of the relevant measure proceeds on the basis that open access can widen participation, but users require clear information about authorship, licence, quality, accessibility, maintenance and the status of any learning or assessment. System-level policy does not displace provider responsibility for the quality, integrity and lawful operation of its provision. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.

Accountability for the relevant measure should follow decision-making authority. The decision must be referred to the authority capable of changing policy, allocating resources or formally accepting the remaining risk. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.

For the policy matter, the implementation record should distinguish binding duties, policy expectations and institutional choices, including any transition or jurisdictional limitation. Public confidence cannot be separated from an institution's ability to identify responsibility and substantiate its conclusions.