OPENEDUCATIONALRESOURCES
Advancing Widespread Adoption to
Improve Instruction and Learning

THE WILLIAM AND FLORA HEWLETT FOUNDATIONDECEMBER 2015

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESDECEMBER 2015

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation helps people build
measurably better lives, concentrating its resources on activities in
education, the environment, global development and population,
performing arts, and philanthropy, as well as grants to support
disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Hewlett Foundation’s Education Program makes grants toimprove education by expanding the reach of openly available
educational resources, improving California education policies,
and by supporting “deeper learning”—a combination of thefundamental knowledge and practical basic skills all students
will need to succeed.
On the web: www.hewlett.org

These materials were prepared as part of the Hewlett Foundation’s internal planning process and do not represent actions to be taken by Hewlett Foundation staff
or by grantee staff at the Foundation’s direction. In particular, although some of the progress indicators, targets, or metrics may reflect the passage of legislation(based on input from grantees and experts in the field), the Hewlett Foundation does not lobby or earmark its funds for prohibited lobbying activities, as defined in
the federal tax laws. The Foundation’s funding for policy work is limited to permissible forms of support only, such as general operating support grants that grantees
can allocate at their discretion and project support grants for nonlobbying activities (e.g., public education and nonpartisan research).

cover photo : B art Verweij, World BankLICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0©2 015, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The text and graphics in this document areprovided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, except where otherwise noted.

TABLE OF CONTENTSE X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . iI N T R O D U C T I O N .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11. Contextualizing the OER strategy. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

2

2. Strengthening pedagogy and reducing costs for higher education.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

6

3. Boosting quality and access for K–12 education .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
4. Supporting robust technical and institutional infrastructure .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

21

5. Managing the strategy and monitoring progress.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23
A P P E N D I X A: Factors for pathway selection.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30
A P P E N D I X B: OER Dashboard.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

31

E N D N OT E S.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 2002, the Hewlett Foundation has worked with Open Educational Resources (OER) grantees to improve education globally bymaking high-quality academic materials openly available on the Internet. The Education Program continues to work toward establishinga self-sustaining and adaptive global OER ecosystem and demonstrating its potential to improve teaching and learning.

OER’s past successes have built a promisingfoundation for mainstream adoption.
In 2002, The Hewlett Foundation began investing in Open
Educational Resources (OER)—high quality teaching, learning, andresearch resources that are free for others to use and re-purpose. OER
presented an extraordinary opportunity for increasing access to education, sharing knowledge, fostering instructional innovation, andsupporting personalized learning. The widespread use of OER would
empower educators to tailor instruction and enable students to makemeaningful choices about their own education while dramaticallylowering the cost of instructional materials.
When the Foundation first began to support OER, the concept was
relatively unknown so our approach focused on building the field.
The Foundation invested in many of the key anchor institutions
that needed to be in place for the field to grow and funded a variety of opportunistic projects that capitalized on new innovations. Many of these early
Hewlett Foundation grantees are now prominent not only within OER but also within
the education field more broadly. For instance, OpenStax at Rice University is producing textbooks that have been adopted by over 1,000 courses worldwide, and MIT
OpenCourseWare now averages a million visits each month.1iphoto : John Hogg, World BankLICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARYNUMBER of CREATIVE COMMONS-LICENSED WORKS
2006

2010

50 MILLION

400 MILLION
1.18 BILLION

2015

These early investments helped create a field that has grown well beyond our initialexpectations. Creative Commons’ licenses have increased at an astonishing rate, from50 million pieces of content in 2006 to over 1 billion in 2015.2 Moreover, the permissions on these licenses are growing more open over time; in 2010, 40 percent of open
licenses did not restrict commercial use or adaptations, while that number has increased
to 56 percent in 2014.3 The U.S. Department of Labor has leveraged billions of dollars
to create open materials for community colleges, and the government of South Africa
has distributed open textbooks from Siyavula Education to every school in the country.4 Overall, 14 governments have also made national commitments to open education,
which is pushing OER to scale.5
This remarkable growth led the Foundation to step back and explore whether OER
could reach mainstream adoption so that it is the default choice for teachers and students rather than the exception. To investigate, the Foundation commissioned a Boston
Consulting Group (BCG) study in 2013, which found that OER’s growth constitutes
the “green shoots” that are often precursors to mainstream adoption of an innovation.
BCG found that roughly 10 percent of K–12 educators were using OER as a primarymaterial, which demonstrated even broader adoption than expected.6 Based on patterns
from other industries, we realized that OER could be nearing a tipping point whereadoption begins to accelerate as more mainstream teachers and students see evidence
that early adopters are pleased with the innovation. Empirical research of other innovations places this tipping point around 15 to 20 percent of market share.7ii

10% U SING OER AS
PRIMARY MATERIALSTIPPING POINT
for ADOPTION
at 15-20%

K-12 EDUCATORSOPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Foundation can accelerate mainstream adoption
by using a problem-based approach to strategy.
Based on the BCG results, the Foundation realized that we had an unprecedented
opportunity to scale OER and unleash its potential to improve teaching and learning in
the future. Therefore, we refreshed our OER strategy to focus on our goal of using grants
to help OER reach mainstream adoption. Instead of continuing our previous strategy—
which primarily funded key players and promising opportunities that had the momentum to reach scale—we wanted to show teachers and students what they could gain fromadopting OER, so we decided to position these materials as the solution to some of themost pressing problems in education. This problem-based approach will identify theissues that are most relevant to teachers and students and make targeted grants that apply
OER to solve them at scale. This new, more concrete emphasis can significantly grow the
adoption of open materials and build a base of users who, regardless of why they initiallyadopt open resources, gain the freedom to take advantage of the benefits of openness.
This shift is well timed because important education stakeholders
are identifying a number of problems with the dominant publishing model. In the United States, textbook costs are rising rapidly
while quality suffers, particularly in the K–12 market in terms ofalignment with the latest educational standards. In the developingworld, there are often shortages of high-quality materials, and many
students cannot access the existing materials due to cost barriers andcopyright issues that prevent translation. Across all countries, teachers feel bound to rigid curricula that are not tailored to their students’needs and local contexts. OER may be able to solve these problems.

TEXTBOOK COSTSINCREASED by 82%
FROM 2002 to 2012,
TRIPLE THE RATEof INFLATIONS O U R C E : U. S . G O V E R N M E N T ACCO U N TA B I L I T Y O F F I C E
The Foundation has reviewed these issues and identified potential
pathways for problem-based investment through internal discussions, expert input, and field-wide strategy. The Foundation will
photo : CCAC North Libraryconsider pathways in the K–12 and postsecondary domains in the United States and
LICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0
internationally. The pathways described in this document are initial hypotheses toward
which we are already making grants, but we will adapt and shift our investments as we
continue to learn about opportunities and as we consult with the field and our Board.
Over time, we envision a rolling set of grant priorities that allow us to pursue new pathways as older challenges are resolved.

Alongside pathway investments, the Foundation will reserve part of its portfolio to continue funding the infrastructure necessary to support the field. This continued support
will ensure that the technical basis, leadership, anchor institutions, and research capacitythat have driven OER’s growth to date remain healthy in the long term.

iii

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OER can strengthen pedagogy andreduce costs for higher education.
In the United States, the symptoms of a broken educational market are acutely visible inthe soaring costs of college textbooks. Textbook costs increased by 82 percent from 2002
to 2012, at triple the rate of inflation.8 Moreover, existing materials can restrict the pedagogical freedom of faculty; textbook content is not flexible enough to match innovative
teaching methods; and where commercial content does offer flexibility, opportunities
to adapt are only available inside proprietary platforms. In developing countries, themarket for educational resources can be even more ineffective. Students feel the burdenof cost acutely, curricula are underdeveloped, and the market sees little opportunity forprofit, limiting the incentive to produce effective educational resources appropriate for
local contexts.9

OPPORTUNITIES(e.g. exploratory grants for future pathways)

THE HEWLETT FOUNDATION will SUPPORT USE of OER to ADDRESS CRITICAL PROBLEMS in EDUCATIONPROGRAM DOMAINS AND PATHWAYSOER OUTCOMEPOSTSECONDARYOpen textbooks for the most enrolled courses, zero textbook costdegrees in community colleges, and future opportunities

OER are widely used as
primary materials inmainstream education,
enabling effective
teaching and learning

K-12
Common Core instructional materials, educational materials in thedeveloping world, and future opportunities
INFRASTRUC TURE INVESTMENTS
Technical basis, leadership, anchor, institutions, research capacity

GOAL

Underserved students have greater access to education andreceive personalized instruction that improves learningiv

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARYOER offer a promising way to address issues related to both costs and pedagogy. Openmaterials can help increase access to higher education for students who cannot afford toattend college, and can also help alleviate cost burdens on students who are at risk ofdropping out for financial reasons. Open materials can empower faculty with the academic freedom to tailor their courses to their students’ needs and even engage students
in meaningful learning experiences through adaptation and improvement of the open
content itself.10 In the near term, the Foundation will continue funding in two pathways
that build on current grants:
Open textbooks for the most-enrolled college courses. Open textbooks in high-enrollment courses can deliver cost savings and pedagogical benefits to the maximum numberof students. Moreover, the familiar form of textbooks will likely aid adoption because
faculty are more comfortable with textbooks than with less traditional forms of open
resources. Tactics that will support this effort include building the supply of easily discoverable, high-quality open textbooks; providing technical assistance for faculty; andpromoting open materials to faculty and librarians.
Zero textbook cost (ZTC) degrees in community colleges. A ZTC degree replaces traditional textbooks with free, openly licensed materials for an entire degree program.
For community college students in particular, the cost savings are significant: up to 30
percent of tuition, fees, and supplies.11 Moreover, ZTC degrees ensure that the benefitsof open materials follow students from enrollment to graduation, allowing for a pathwayof personalized courses that guide students toward completing their degrees. The strategy
for scaling ZTC degrees includes identifying and supporting strategic early adopters,
supporting targeted advocacy, building technical assistance capacity, and strengthening
the supply of open materials to cover entire degree pathways. The ZTC degree pathway
is being funded as a separate Hewlett Foundation initiative, designed to succeed througha single, larger, time-bound investment. After the initiative ends, the Foundation may
continue to fund aspects of the pathway if necessary to ensure its long-term success.

Given our limited resources at the present time, we do not envision a full-fledged, postsecondary pathway outside of North America. However, several of our existing grantees
are working on related issues, particularly in the developing world, providing the typesof leadership and technical capacity for OER that we envision supporting under our
grantmaking for infrastructure. These anchor institutions and leaders will continue theirwork of encouraging governments and postsecondary education institutions to adopt
policies that are supportive of OER. Furthermore, we will explore ways in which our
grantmaking in these two pathways can inform work in other countries.

vOPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OER can boost both quality andaccess for K–12 education.
The current instructional materials procurement model used in the
K–12 education system in the United States is flawed. It has led toinefficient government spending on texts that do not meet academic
standards (e.g., Common Core); constrains teachers’ flexibility toadapt materials; and limits student uses of content, including therights to mark up, highlight, and take textbooks home. In the developing world, scarcity of educational materials is a general problem;in many places, six or more students often share a single, outdated
textbook, while teachers face a shortage of workbooks, exercises, andother materials.
Open materials are well suited to address these problems. In the
United States, OER can fill key gaps in the market for instructional
materials by providing effective resources that are aligned with academic standards. Cost savings from adopting open materials could also redress inequitiesby allowing underfunded districts to reallocate money to serve students in other ways
and to keep materials current by leveraging local educator expertise. In the developingworld, open instructional materials could meet students’ needs where no materials currently exist, and empower educators to tailor resources to their local context throughtranslation and adaptation. The Foundation will invest in grantmaking and explorations
around two pathways in K–12:
Instructional materials aligned to common standards. Although numerous states haveadopted common standards in math and English Language arts since 2012, implementation in many schools has been rocky and uneven, due in part to a lack of high-quality,
effective instructional materials aligned to the standards and limits in district textbook
budget cycles. The common standards pathway aims to provide aligned open materials to teachers in a format that is familiar and easy to use. To achieve this goal, theFoundation will support increasing the supply of aligned materials to cover full years inmath and English language arts, and encourage reform in district procurement processes
to promote adoption of open materials by state education agencies and districts. Other
subject areas with common standards, like science, may follow.
Educational materials in the developing world. Open materials can provide vital

resources for schools, teachers, and families to educate children in the developingworld. This pathway would promote open resources as a solution to gaps in educational
materials for grades K–12, which are often purchased by national governments. The
Foundation is initially exploring what role OER might play in increasing the availabilityof early reading materials for children. Many children in the developing world do nothave access to books to read and therefore never become literate. The Foundation’s initial
grants will examine whether and how OER can be part of the solution to this problem.
The Foundation will likely focus on countries where it has prior experience, such as
those that have received OER grants and those in which the Global Development andPopulation Program has funded education work.

vi

photo : Paul Wood, US Department of Education
LICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Foundation will continue supporting
robust infrastructure for OER.
As the strategy shifts to emphasize pathways to scale, the Foundation will back its investments with robust and flexible infrastructure. This infrastructure, which is necessary toenable OER to grow and spread, is a valuable product of past efforts to build the field.
Therefore, on top of the pathways it selects at any given time, the Foundation will also
make ongoing investments in OER infrastructure.
To ensure mainstream adoption, the Foundation will support four essential elements ofinfrastructure. First, the technical basis for OER is a prerequisite for their existence andability to continue growing and includes open licenses, interoperability, and accessibility
standards. Second, leadership from core champions will be increasingly relevant as thefield moves towards mainstream adoption because these individuals will continue thework of fueling supportive policies and the field’s growth. Third, anchor institutions
house the technical capacity for open materials and provide institutional support for thepolicy-related and technical work of individual champions. Finally, research capacity isessential to assess the impact of open materials on student learning and answer strategic
questions about the best paths to scale.

David Ernst of the University of Minnesota leads aOpen Textbook Network faculty workshop for the
North Dakota University System, October 2015.
photo : Sara Cohen
LICENSED UNDER CC BY 4.0vii

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Foundation staff will manage a pipeline ofpathways and monitor progress.
The Foundation will continue using research and exploratory grants to build a pipelineof pathways for future investment. The Foundation is selecting and sequencing potential
pathways based on a set of factors including benefits to users and the strategy, the potential
to succeed, the unique role philanthropy can play, and resources for execution. In particular, the Foundation is prioritizing pathways that support equity for underserved students.
The field has already started coalescing around several of the potential pathways(e.g., ZTC degrees and instructional materials aligned to common standards), so theFoundation will support grantees by gradually shifting resources to the chosen pathways.
Throughout this transition, the strategy will maintain strong support for infrastructure.
A small portion of the budget will be reserved for investments in promising opportunities
outside the current pathways, including exploratory grants for developing new pathways.
The use of monitoring and evaluation will track progress and guide future efforts as
the Foundation maintains and updates the portfolio. The most important indicator forwhether open materials are reaching the mainstream will be the percentage of higher
education faculty and K–12 educators or districts adopting open resources as their primary course material. Additional metrics from the Foundation’s OER dashboard andpathway-level metrics will provide further information about the factors contributing tothis ultimate goal of adoption.

Collaboration with grantees andfunders will help scale results.
A problem-based approach will help broaden the Foundation’s collaborative relationships to include supporters of OER and the organizations that directly work on the specific problems. Since the problems targeted by the pathways are too large for any single
organization to solve alone, the Foundation will provide enhanced support for grantee
collaboration. A problem-based approach also opens up new possibilities for collaboration with funders who focus on the specific problems that open materials may solve (e.g.,college completion or early childhood learning). Therefore, this strategy refresh presents
valuable opportunities to build a broader coalition of supporters, coordinate across alarger pool of resources, and help new solutions reach scale.

viii

INTRODUCTION

In 2013 Tidewater Community College launched an innovative program called theZ Degree, named for “zero textbook costs.” Professors in the business administration
program searched online for the free, openly licensed content that would best meettheir students’ need, remixed and adapted it, and then replaced their traditional textbooks with these materials. Within months, professors reported that new teaching techniques and course materials suited to their unique groups of students had led to better
student engagement and learning. Professor Linda Williams reflected, “It…absolutelytransform[ed] the way I teach, what I teach, and how my students learn.” Student Megan
Kadesch liked that “everything is online, and… there’s more out there for you besides
just the book.” Melissa Hoch, a single mom providing for her family while studying,saved thousands in textbook costs and calls the Z Degree “one of the best things that’s
happened to me since I’ve been at [Tidewater].”12
Tidewater is part of a broader movement in education that is benefiting from open
instructional materials. The Utah Open Textbook Project created openly licensed, printable science textbooks for the K–12 market, which Utah’s Office of Education distributed statewide for only five dollars apiece.13 The Teacher Education in Sub-SaharanAfrica network (TESSA) gathered more than 700 teachers and teacher educators to create free and flexible materials in four languages and 10 country contexts for school-basedteacher training, and by 2010, 400,000 teachers had used TESSA resources.14
The efforts of Tidewater Community College, the Utah Open Textbook Project, andTESSA demonstrate that OER offer tangible benefits and can provide pedagogical freedom, improved learning, and cost savings. The use of open materials holds great potential to improve both access to education and the quality of that education around theworld and at all grade levels.
The Hewlett Foundation began investing in OER in 2002 and has played a central rolein supporting the field. Since then, however, the field has grown and matured significantly. Through a strategy refresh, the Hewlett Foundation is now seeking opportunities
to build on the field’s successes and take OER to scale, thus maximizing its full potential
to improve global education.

1

1.

CONTEXTUALIZING
the OER STRATEGYD E F I N I T I O N O F O P E N E D U C AT I O N A L R E S O U R C E S ( O E R )OER are “teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have beenreleased under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others.”
In this strategy, we also use the following terms to mean OER: open materials, openly licensed materials, open
instructional materials, open resources, and open content. Open textbooks are a specific type of OER.

The field’s past successes have built a promisingfoundation for mainstream adoption.
Through its work in OER, the Hewlett Foundation promotes a world in which students around the globe, particularly those from underserved populations, have better
access to education and can more easily experience personal learning. OER can increase
the agency of teachers and students by empowering teachers to tailor instruction andenabling students to make meaningful choices about their own education.
Back in 2002, the concept of OER was relatively unknown, but the Foundation saw theInternet’s immense potential to dramatically increase the supply and availability of effective educational resources. Therefore, we pursued a field-building approach, supporting
many of the key anchor institutions that were needed to grow the field and funding avariety of opportunistic projects that capitalized on the new innovations in the field. The
Foundation sought out those who had widely respected resources they were willing to
openly license. Many of these early Hewlett Foundation grantees are now prominent not
only within OER but also within the broader education field. For example, OpenStax at
Rice University produces open textbooks that have been adopted by over 1,000 courses
worldwide and MIT OpenCourseWare now averages a million visits each month.15

2

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCONTEXTUALIZING THE OER STRATEGYThe Foundation’s early investments helped create a field that has grown well beyond our
initial expectations. Creative Commons’ licenses have increased at an astonishing rate,from 50 million pieces of content in 2006, to 400 million in 2010, to 882 million in
2014.16 Moreover, the permissions on these licenses are growing more open over time; in2010, 40 percent of open licenses did not restrict commercial use or adaptations, whilethat number increased to 56 percent in 2014.17 The U.S. Department of Labor has leveraged billions of dollars to create open materials for community colleges, and the government of South Africa has distributed open textbooks from Siyavula Education to every
school in the country.18 Overall, 14 governments have made national commitments toopen education, which is pushing OER to scale.19
This remarkable growth led to our decision to step back and explore whether OER
could reach mainstream adoption and become the default choice for teachers and students rather than the exception. To investigate, the Foundation commissioned a Boston
Consulting Group (BCG) study in 2013, which found that OER’s growth constitutes
the “green shoots” that are often precursors to mainstream adoption of an innovation.
BCG found that roughly 10 percent of K–12 educators were using OER as a primarymaterial, which demonstrated even broader adoption than expected.20 The Foundation
realized that, based on patterns from other industries, OER could be nearing a tipping
point in which adoption begins to accelerate as more mainstream teachers and students
see evidence that early adopters are pleased with the innovation. Empirical research ofother innovations places this tipping point at around 15 to 20 percent of market share.21

THE PENCIL METAPHOR
THE LEADERS

HANGERS-ON

THE FERRULESFirst to adopt technologies,
document and sharepractice—warts and all.

Know all the lingo,
attend the seminars but
don’t do anything.

Hold tightly onto what
they know. Tech has noplace in their classroom.

THE SHARP ONESTHE WOOD

THE ERASERS

They watch the leaders,grab the best bits, learn
form mistakes and do
great stuff.

Would use tech if
someone else sets it up
and shows them how-to
and keeps it running.

Endeavor to undomuch or all the workof the leaders.

In order to move OER adoption from theearly leaders to the mainstream—the woodof the pencil in this metaphor—the Hewlett
Foundation will support efforts to use OER tosolve critical problems in education.

Based on an idea from Lindy Orwinlindyorwin.com

3

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCONTEXTUALIZING THE OER STRATEGY

To accelerate mainstream adoption, the Foundation
will shift to a problem-based approach to strategy.
This transitional period provides an unprecedented opportunity to set the stage for
OER’s potential to improve teaching and learning around the world. Through fieldwide strategy meetings and interviews with grantees and OER leaders, the Foundation
has heard a clear demand to move toward scaling adoption. Therefore, the Education
Program has refreshed the OER strategy to ensure that the Foundation’s grants do asmuch as possible to support this goal. We decided to switch from our previous strategy
of funding key players and promising opportunities that had the momentum to reachscale, and instead more purposefully position OER as the solution to some of the mostpressing problems in education. In doing so, we hope to demonstrate to teachers andstudents the benefits of adopting OER. This problem-based approach will identify theissues that are most relevant to teachers and students and make targeted grants that apply
OER to solve these problems at scale. This new emphasis on concrete benefits can significantly grow the adoption of open materials and build a base of users who, regardlessof why they initially adopt open resources, gain the freedom to take advantage of open
educational practice.22
The box below shows how the strategy will pursue a series of investments in a pipelineof pathways across the K–12 and postsecondary domains, both in the United States
and abroad, including a complementary set of grants to continue support for OER
infrastructure. At first, the strategy will pursue no more than three or four well-defined
pathways that have early momentum. During this time, program staff will continue toflesh out future possibilities based on capacity and interest in the field, and may even give
exploratory grants to set the stage for a new pathway. Over time, the Foundation will
begin to invest in pathways further down the pipeline as earlier efforts come to fruition.

OPPORTUNITIES(e.g. exploratory grants for future pathways)

THE HEWLETT FOUNDATION will SUPPORT USE of OER to ADDRESS CRITICAL PROBLEMS in EDUCATIONPROGRAM DOMAINS AND PATHWAYSOER OUTCOMEPOSTSECONDARYOpen textbooks for the most enrolled courses, zero textbook costdegrees in community colleges, and future opportunities

OER are widely used as
primary materials inmainstream education,
enabling effective
teaching and learning

K-12
Common Core instructional materials, educational materials in thedeveloping world, and future opportunities
INFRASTRUC TURE INVESTMENTS
Technical basis, leadership, anchor, institutions, research capacity

GOAL

Underserved students have greater access to education andreceive personalized instruction that improves learning

4

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCONTEXTUALIZING THE OER STRATEGYOER aim to tackle gaps in the current market
for educational materials.
The Foundation’s shift to a problem-based approach is well timed because importanteducation stakeholders are identifying a number of problems with the dominant publishing model, and OER offers the promise of resolving them. Textbook costs in the UnitedStates are rising rapidly while quality suffers, particularly in the K–12 market in termsof alignment with the latest educational standards. The developing world suffers fromshortages of high-quality materials, and many students cannot access the existing materials due to cost barriers and copyright issues that prevent translation. Teachers in all countries feel bound to rigid curricula that are not tailored to their students’ needs and local
contexts. The Foundation sees OER as an opportunity to advance beyond such problems. The educational market today gives teachers little choice over what or how to teachtheir students, and it provides only limited resources to help students reach their fullpotential. Instructional materials are among the most critical factors to student learningso addressing this broken market is crucial to reforming education systems worldwide.23
Because deficiencies in instructional materials affect K–12 and postsecondary education,
the OER community works in both these domains as well as across the United States andinternationally. This work often involves close collaboration in the field to build global
infrastructure and to share lessons that transcend national boundaries. Similarly, theFoundation’s strategy includes both K–12 and postsecondary institutions, but will focus
on a subset of U.S. and international work within those domains and prioritize efforts
that reach underserved students. The Foundation’s investments in infrastructure will
tackle cross-cutting issues related to OER itself, supporting the global open materials
movement and enabling work at all grade levels. Because the Foundation cannot work in
all areas directly, it will seek to share relevant lessons with the field to support the effortsof other funders and OER champions in those spaces.
Through internal discussions, expert input, field-wide strategy meetings, and careful consideration of the most pressing needs, the Foundation has developed an emerging set ofpathways in the K–12 and postsecondary domains. The Foundation will initially pursue
those pathways that build on previous areas of grantmaking but will also explore otherpathways within each domain. The Foundation is selecting and sequencing potential
pathways based on a set of factors including benefits to users and the strategy, the potential to succeed, philanthropy’s unique role, and resources for execution. The “managing
the strategy and monitoring progress” section addresses the factors impacting pathway
selection in more detail.
The next two sections of this document describe the postsecondary and K–12 domains
as well as the initial pathways the Foundation is pursuing within each. The subsequent
section addresses the infrastructure domain and the final section elaborates on how theFoundation will execute the strategy.

5

2.

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY
and REDUCING COSTS for
HIGHER EDUCATION

In higher education, students face spiraling
textbook costs, and faculty need materials that
better support innovative pedagogy.
In the United States, the symptoms of a broken educational market are acutely visible in the soaring costs of college textbooks. Textbook costs increased by 82 percent
from 2002 to 2012, at triple the rate of inflation.24 These costs can restrict access tocollege for a significant population25 and hinder learning by dissuading many students
from purchasing required course materials.26 Several factors contribute to the problem
of increasing cost. Professors choose textbooks but since they don’t pay for them, cost
is not an important factor—in fact, a 2014 Babson Research Group survey found thatfaculty rank cost as the least important consideration in their textbook choices.27 This
demonstrates that publishers have little need to compete on price to ensure their books
are adopted. Additionally, the top few publishers have concentrated market power. In
higher education, five publishing companies control over 80 percent of the $8.8 billion
publishing market, which insulates them from competition.28
The higher education system also tends to offer little support or reward
to faculty who excel pedagogically or openly share the resources theycreate. As a result, professors often struggle to make instructional
materials and pedagogical approaches fit the needs of unique groupsof students and course objectives. Currently, faculty members often
tailor their course objectives to meet the structure and content of the
textbook instead of the other way around.

photo : MCPearson
LICENSED UNDER CC BY 3.0

6

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY AND REDUCING COSTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONIn developing countries, the market for educational resources is even more ineffective.
Students feel the burden of cost acutely, faculty members are often underqualified andpoorly rewarded, institutions lack adequate libraries, and curricula are underdeveloped.29
Moreover, the publishing market sees little opportunity for profit and faces weaker publishing infrastructure and distribution channels, limiting the incentive to produce effective educational resources appropriate for local contexts.30 These problems mean many
students cannot access higher education at all, and those who do continue their schooling may not receive a high-quality education.

OER can increase access to affordable
and effective higher education.
“In the past, I only had the official adopted textbook to choose from.
Now I have the whole world, using open courseware from people who
are worldwide experts in the fields I teach. I’m finding incredibly
creative and innovative approaches to concepts that I wouldn’t havecome up with myself. That kind of freedom is amazing.”
Professor Linda Williams, t i d e w a t e r c o m m u n i t y c o l l e g e 31

OER offer a promising solution to issues related to both pedagogy and costs. Openmaterials can empower faculty with more academic freedom to tailor their courses tothe needs of their students. Professors with limited time can adopt open textbooks andonly modify select parts, allowing them to move away from the rigid prescriptions of
traditional textbooks without building new resources from scratch. Professors can also
curate their own instructional materials to replace textbooks, leading to more flexibility
and creativity in course content and teaching approach. Students often find these digital
resources and non-traditional pedagogical approaches more engaging.32

7

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY AND REDUCING COSTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONThe cost benefits can allow more students to complete college. First, open materials canhelp increase access to higher education for students who cannot afford it. Studies indicate that cutting tuition and fees by $1,300 (roughly the annual cost of textbooks for an
associate’s degree) could grow college attendance in the United States by approximately
5 percent.33 Second, open materials can help alleviate cost burdens on students who are
at risk of dropping out for financial reasons. Paying for textbooks forces students to work
extra hours and strains their studies, and 54 percent of students who do not complete
their degrees cite needing to work more hours as the primary reason they leave college.34
The Z Degree at Tidewater Community College has begun to illustrate the benefits ofopen materials. In the first year of the program, Tidewater cut the cost of graduating witha business degree by nearly 30 percent, and attrition dropped by 6 percent for coursesthat switched to open materials.35
Finally, in the developing world, open materials can give faculty and students the effective educational resources they currently lack. Because these resources are free, students
and institutions can afford to acquire more materials, and because open materials can beadapted, faculty can select from a wider range of base materials and then translate theminto local languages and contexts.

The Foundation is exploring pathways that
help postsecondary faculty teach effectively.
Within the postsecondary domain, the Foundation is already working on two initial
pathways: open textbooks for the most-enrolled college courses and zero textbook cost
(ZTC) degrees in community colleges. In addition, the Foundation continues to explore
other opportunities to solve pressing problems in postsecondary education in the UnitedStates and abroad.

PATHWAYS IN THE POSTSECONDARY DOMAIN
Open textbooks for the most enrolled college courses
Zero textbook cost degrees in community colleges
Future opportunities

8OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY AND REDUCING COSTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONOPEN TEXTBOOKS FOR THE MOST-ENROLLED COLLEGE COURSES
Shifting to open textbooks is a relatively easy shift for postsecondary faculty because
they are a relatively familiar unit of instructional materials for courses that traditionallydepend on textbooks. Many professors in the United States are already considering using
open materials in the near future; a 2014 survey of higher education teaching faculty
conducted by Babson Survey Research Group found that over three quarters expect touse OER or would consider using them in the next three years.36 Open textbooks canseize on faculty receptivity in order to scale adoption. Tactics for this pathway include:
Building the library of easily discoverable open textbooks. The supply of searchable

open textbooks is already growing. The University of Minnesota’s Open Textbook
Library includes nearly 200 textbooks created and peer reviewed by faculty from nineinstitutions, while OpenStax College’s 16 textbooks for the most popular introductorylevel college courses have been adopted by more than 1,000 courses around the worldin fewer than three years and downloaded nearly a million times, and have saved students more than $50 million.37 These open textbooks have been a major focus of theFoundation’s past OER work, and continuing to expand supply will bring these benefits
to more students.
Providing technical assistance. Organizations that have deep, hands-on experience

working with professors seeking to adopt and adapt open textbooks can provide invaluable expertise to overcome barriers to OER adoption. Technical assistance providers cancurate open textbooks to help faculty choose the appropriate open resources to replaceand supplement their current course materials; train faculty on how to build open materials into a full course and take advantage of open licensing; and support outreach to
stakeholders like administrators and librarians.
Promoting open textbooks among faculty and librarians. To grow adoption, OER
advocates must educate faculty about why open materials are better than traditional
textbooks. Costs are often the most easily understandable incentive for switching, but
faculty can also learn about open licensing’s benefits, including the possibility of open
educational practice. Additional research into the effect of OER on college completion,
via increased access and better student learning, can help build faculty support for open
textbooks. In addition, open resource advocates can provide faculty with opportunities
and incentives to spend hands-on time with the materials, such as by offering them theopportunity to review open textbooks.

This pathway will focus on both four-year and two-year institutions to help establish thecredibility of open textbooks as effective for student learning; many students who will
be in a position to spread openness as future teachers and researchers attend four-yearcolleges. At the same time, this pathway will promote equity by prioritizing institutions
with diverse student bodies. It will also engage faculty and advocates to produce effective
textbooks that can be used in two-year colleges—a spillover benefit that will be especiallyhelpful for colleges with limited capacity to create their own open textbooks to support
large, underserved student populations.

9OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY AND REDUCING COSTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONZERO TEXTBOOK COST DEGREES IN COMMUNITY COLLEGESThe zero textbook cost (ZTC) degree eliminates textbook costs for an entire course of
study by replacing traditional textbooks with free, openly licensed materials. This pathway is a separate Foundation initiative, with a large, time-bound investment that goesbeyond the standard OER budget.
Virginia’s Tidewater Community College introduced the first zero textbook cost degree(the Z Degree) in its business administration associate’s program. More than 1,700 students have participated in Z Degree courses and attrition has dropped by 6 percent forcourses that switched to open materials.37 Following suit, Northern Virginia Community
College recently implemented two ZTC degrees in general education and social sciences,and more than 5,000 students have enrolled in these pilot courses so far. 38
The long-term benefits of ZTC degrees extend far beyond cost savings. ZTC degrees
with open materials also have the potential to reshape community college curricula,empowering faculty with the flexibility to remix custom materials for their students now
and in the future.

CUT TING the COST of a COLLEGE DEGREE by UP TO 30%
Tuition and textbook costs for Tidewater degrees
TCC IN-STATE TUITION$9,600TEXTBOOKS$3,700$9,600ZTC DEGREE SAVES
30% OF TOTAL COST

TRADITIONAL DEGREE

TCC IN-STATE TUITIONZERO TEXTBOOK COST DEGREE
$0

$4K

$7K

$10K

$14K

TOTAL COST OF DEGREE

10OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

STRENGTHENING PEDAGOGY AND REDUCING COSTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONThis pathway will build on the early success of ZTC degrees to bring the model to students and teachers at community colleges across the United States. The effort includes:
Identifying and supporting the next set of early adopters. The Foundation will help

build momentum for ZTC degrees by fast-tracking programs in a set of favorable, highimpact locations. It will select these pilot programs based on criteria such as administrator and faculty co-champions; innovative, clearly defined implementation proposals; and diversity of the student body. To support the work of these early adopters, theFoundation will reach out to philanthropic partners to expand funding opportunities.
Scaling the model through targeted advocacy. Several potential approaches could help
scale ZTC degrees in different contexts. First, advocates could work through networks toempower peer-to-peer persuasion. This approach would mirror other community college
programs that have used networks to reach scale, like the Achieving the Dream Network,
which now includes 200 colleges across 34 states.39 Second, advocates could leverage competition among colleges that serve students in the same region. Third, advocates might
educate policymakers about how policies can incentivize the creation of ZTC degrees.
Ensuring implementation with sufficient tools and expertise. The Foundation will build

technical assistance capacity to ensure that colleges interested in creating ZTC degrees
have the information and support necessary to succeed. Organizations ranging fromOER experts to colleges with existing ZTC degrees could all play important roles intechnical assistance.
Strengthening the supply of postsecondary OER to fuel expansion. Continued creationof effective postsecondary open materials will become crucial to long-term scaling of ZTC
degrees. The Foundation will ensure that there are sufficient OER options for each ZTC
degree course in early majors, gather and support the distribution of remixed ZTC degreematerials for re-sharing, and fund the creation of sets of open materials for new majors.
The ZTC pathway will focus primarily on two-year institutions because they serve
diverse students who are particularly at risk of dropping out for cost-related reasons but
need college degrees to achieve greater social mobility. Two-year institutions also require
fewer courses to graduate than four-year colleges, which simplifies the course materials needed to obtain a degree. As the Foundation pursues this pathway, it will conduct
research to ensure that ZTC degrees are achieving the goal of increasing college completion. Research will also test different approaches to scaling the model, thus providing
valuable lessons for OER advocates and funders interested in spreading ZTC degrees toother parts of the world.
Given our limited resources, we do not envision a full-fledged postsecondary pathway
outside of North America. Several of our existing grantees, however, are working on
issues related to postsecondary education, particularly in the developing world, andwill continue to encourage governments and educational institutions to adopt policies
that are supportive of OER. They provide the types of leadership and technical capacity for OER that we envision supporting under our grantmaking for infrastructure.
Furthermore, we will explore ways in which our grantmaking in these two pathways caninform work in other countries.

11

3.

BOOSTING QUALIT Y andACCESS for K–12 EDUCATION

K–12 education suffers from a scarcity
of effective instructional materials andinefficient procurement models.
In the K–12 education system in the United States, the current educational market andinstructional materials procurement models fail to provide students with effective materials that are aligned to the latest educational standards. In many cases, standards-aligned
content is not even being created. For instance, 17 out of 20 K–8 math series reviewed
by EdReports failed to align to the Common Core State Standards, despite being labeled
as such.40
Even where aligned materials exist, they often do not reach the most disadvantaged
students. In many districts, procurement restrictions limit access to effective materials41,
for example, having state-approved textbook lists dominated by traditional publishers,
and there is only enough funding to replace each textbook every six to ten years.42 As aresult, less than one third of educators report having “access to high-quality [standards]aligned textbooks.”43 Students with specialized needs, such as English language learners, suffer disproportionately from these funding limitations.44 A Council of Great City
Schools survey found that four-fifths of teachers believe current instructional materials
for English language learners do not reflect the rigor of recently adopted standards.45

12

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

K-12TEXTBOOKPUBLISHING
MARKET

BOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATION

TOP 3 PUBLISHERSCONTROL 90%
OF THE MARKET

Moreover, K–12 textbooks are increasingly expensive, which wastes taxpayer moneythat could be allocated to other priorities in underfunded districts. The Association ofAmerican Publishers reports that U.S. spending on K–12 textbooks in 2011 was $8
billion46—a significant expenditure given how dissatisfied educators are with what has
been purchased. Similar to the postsecondary market, rising costs are driven by concentrated market power. The top three publishers control 95 percent of the K–12 reading market and 86 percent of the K–12 math market, though other players provide
supplementary materials outside of core textbooks. Other publishers struggle to competewith lower-priced or more effective materials because these top publishers have wellestablished distribution channels, years of experience, and relationships to back their
expansive marketing.
The problem in the developing world is perhaps even more pressing.
In some places, six or more students may have to share one outdated textbook, and teachers face a shortage of workbooks, exercises,
and other materials to support lessons.47 Children also lack access tobooks outside of the formal education system. Fewer than half thechildren around the world have three or more books at home.48

photo : Visual News Associates, World BankLICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

13

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATION

photo : Todd Huffman

221 MILLION CHILDREN
are TAUGHT in a LANGUAGE
OTHER THAN their
MOTHER TONGUES O U R C E : U N E S COSuch problems are most severe where the market is not strong enough to attract a diversity of publishing companies to create educational materials. Private sector publishers
are often wary of entering markets in developing countries because consumers struggle
to afford books, distribution is challenging, and printing is expensive.49 Some countries
like South Africa are shifting towards state control of textbook production, which also
can deter private publishers from entering the market. A nationalized textbook market
makes it harder for local publishing to grow, resulting in a narrow supply of materials.
Even in countries that report as many textbooks as pupils, there may be local disparities. Within a country, some schools in wealthier areas have more than one textbook
per student, while the most disadvantaged students face shortages.50 Additionally, there
are shortages of materials targeted to diverse language and contextual needs. Publishers
want to cater to as broad an audience as possible, and so materials are often produced in
English or other languages that are common in the country. UNESCO estimates that
221 million children are taught in a language that is not their mother tongue, causing
them to struggle to acquire basic skills as they are expected to simultaneously master aforeign language.51

14

LICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATIONOER can fill gaps in the market withflexible, affordable materials.
OER are well suited to address problems with the current market and procurement inefficiencies. In the United States, open materials can empower teachers with flexibility that
benefits student learning. If teachers are no longer bound to the structure of traditional
textbooks, they will have more freedom to incorporate creative lessons and adapt thesequencing and style of their lessons to their students’ needs. Districts can also gather
their expert teachers to update, maintain, re-align, and otherwise continue developmentof open content for other teachers in the district.
In addition, cost savings from adopting open materials can aid progress on many otherproblems districts currently face. For example, districts can adopt new versions of open
materials as soon as they are published, rather than waiting anywhere from 6 to 10 years
for sufficient funding to procure new textbooks. The widespread use of open materials
in the United States would also enable the reallocation of billions of dollars in funding
to other educational uses that further deeper learning, creating opportunities for otherpolicy advancements. Finally, given that open materials are free, they could competefavorably in state and district procurement processes, which would encourage publishers
to compete on quality and price.

photo : Sydellewillowsmith
LICENSED UNDER CC BY 3.0

15

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATION

Because the educational market is still in its fledgling days in the developing world, open
resources can help leapfrog the problems faced by the traditional publishing structure,
as seen in the United States, and make better progress on providing equitable, affordable, and effective materials. Open licensing allows educators to translate books into
their local languages and provide free or low-cost educational materials. Open resources
can be distributed in print, through mobile devices, or online, so schools and parents
without sophisticated technology can still use them. In countries with state control oftextbooks, open government policies could result in widespread distribution and availability of materials. South Africa’s Department of Basic Education, for instance, printed
10 million openly licensed books from Siyavula Education at a cost of only two dollars
per book.52
Moreover, open resources can play a catalytic role by introducing nascent markets toeffective instructional materials, creating a cycle that builds demand and spurs publishers to produce more content. Publishers in developing countries often avoid the earlychildhood market because the public does not know the full benefits of exposing children to early reading so demand for these books is low. As counterpoint, however, whennonprofit organizations in Nepal began to provide books for young children, this work
popularized early literacy by demonstrating its educational benefits and proving that students, teachers, and parents would use these materials. Subsequently, publishers began
producing additional materials to serve this market.53
As the Foundation further develops pathways in the K–12 domain, we will collect feedback from experts and grantees to learn about additional opportunities in the developingworld. We will seek to better understand the dynamics of the publishing industry inthe developing world and the potential pathways that could relate to problems, such as
youth unemployment and health.

16

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATIONThe Foundation is seeking pathways that
improve access to effective educational resources.
The Hewlett Foundation is currently exploring two pathways in the K–12 domain thatbuild on previous grants: instructional materials aligned to common standards in the
United States and educational materials in the developing world. The Foundation will
also continue to investigate other national and international K–12 opportunities.

PATHWAYS IN THE K-12 DOMAIN
Instructional materials aligned to common standards
Educational materials in the developing world
Future opportunities

photo : Maria Fleischmann, World BankLICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

17

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATIONINSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ALIGNED TO COMMON STANDARDSBeginning in 2010, in response to stagnating educational achievement and inequity for
U.S. students, nearly all states adopted the Common Core State Standards in math andEnglish language arts. Yet, implementation of these common standards in many schools
has been rocky and uneven. One major challenge is that many schools and teachers lacknew, effective materials aligned to the standards.54 The EdReports review of math curricula cited previously demonstrated that even for materials claiming alignment to the
Common Core, 17 out of 20 publishers’ K–8 math series were not aligned.55
A pathway focused on instructional materials aligned to common standards aims to put
high-quality, open materials into the hands of teachers in a format that is familiar andeasy to use, thus maximizing potential for adoption. The Foundation’s Deeper Learning
strategy has actively supported the supply of Common Core instructional materials, andthis OER pathway plans to link to and build on this work. To do so, program staff will
coordinate with the Deeper Learning team to pursue promising joint opportunities andshare relevant lessons. Potential tactics include:
Increasing the supply of aligned materials to cover full years in math and English language arts. In a 2013 Boston Consulting Group survey, about half of K–12 educators

reported awareness of OER.56 However, most teachers surveyed were also skeptical of
the quality of open materials and confused about how to find and use them. To address
this issue, the K–12 OER Collaborative is a new, state-led effort to develop comprehensive, effective, easily discoverable materials aligned to the Common Core.57 The workof such organizations will help fill major gaps in the supply of Common Core–aligned
instructional materials. The Foundation will also explore making investments in existing
Common Core–aligned OER, like EngageNY’s materials, by supporting further adaptation, development, curation, and effective use.
Filling gaps in aligned materials for special needs students. As the K–12 OER

Collaborative and other organizations develop Common Core–aligned open materials,
the Foundation will devote special attention to ensuring there are versions suitable forEnglish language learners. Open instructional materials can benefit all students but arelikely to disproportionately benefit struggling schools that cannot afford effective materials or lack the capacity to find them. These schools tend to have high populations ofunderserved students, such as English language learners, and there is likely to be substantial funder interest in this aspect from an equity perspective.58

18

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATION

Supporting targeted advocacy to promote adoption of OER by state education agencies
and districts. The Foundation will support early adopters to build momentum for K–12

open materials. Schools with large numbers of English language learners offer a promising place to begin scaling adoption. Teachers of English language learners are often
strapped for time and resources to adequately serve the needs of many diverse students.
As mentioned above, the survey conducted by the Council of Great City Schools foundthat four-fifths of teachers believe current instructional materials for English language
learners do not reflect the Common Core’s rigor. As a result, half of the respondents
reported using materials they developed on their own.59 These teachers, burdened withcreating materials from scratch, could be eager to seize the potential of open resources tofacilitate collaborative development.
The Hewlett Foundation will continue reviewing potential opportunities for open
resources to further Common Core implementation. As there is early uptake of common, standards-aligned, open materials, the Foundation will support research into theirimpact on student learning and pedagogical approaches. Such research will facilitate ourunderstanding of how to successfully scale OER and communicate its benefits.
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
This pathway will focus on educational materials for K–12, which national governments
in developing countries often purchase, and seek opportunities to incorporate OER asa way to increase educational access. This pathway would provide vital resources forschools, teachers, and families to educate school-aged children in the developing world.
Since the OER field is less mature in the developing world and the work is geographically dispersed, this pathway focuses on shifting institutional and government policies.
The Foundation’s work to date with international grantees has focused largely on policy
levers as one of the most viable paths to build momentum and grow the international
OER field. At the same time, the Foundation anticipates making exploratory grants totest whether investments in specific types of OER might provide opportunities to havemore concerted impacts. Most notably, the Foundation is currently investigating the roleof OER in increasing the availability of early reading materials.

19

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESBOOSTING QUALIT Y AND ACCESS FOR K–12 EDUCATION

Currently, the Foundation has identified the following potential tactics for this pathway:
Promoting open licensing of educational materials produced by major donor institutions. Many institutions that support education in the developing world, such as

USAID, DFID, UNICEF, and the Global Partnership for Education, produce and/or
fund the production of effective materials to enhance access in areas with few resources.
However, while the institutions have good intentions for sharing, their materials are
seldom put online and even more seldom openly licensed, which prevents translation forreuse in other countries. For example, USAID and the Malawi Ministry of Education’s
Tikwere Interactive Radio Instruction program created a successful series of stories,
activities, and exercises for teachers and students but they were not disseminated as open
resources.60 Advocacy aimed at persuading major international funders to openly license
the materials they are already creating could yield a wealth of new materials designed toreach the most disadvantaged students.
Encouraging major donor institutions to adopt and distribute existing open materials.

When major donor institutions distribute educational materials, they often use a combination of new materials produced in-house and existing materials adapted from othercontexts. In addition to pushing for open licensing of any new materials, the Foundation
would encourage institutions to choose open resources when adopting existing materials
for distribution. Widespread adoption by major donors could help bring existing open
materials to particularly disadvantaged locations, like refugee camps, where they could
be a strong fit to address cost, mobility, and translation needs.61
 dvocating for governments with existing OER-friendly policies to support greaterA
production and adoption. Advocates could encourage governments with existing OER

policies to develop and implement plans to better support OER. Additionally, OER
champions could reach out to countries that support the popular open access movement
but have not yet developed open resources policies, such as Burkina Faso, Paraguay, andChile, and encourage them to move to full open licensing.62
Grants in this pathway will likely focus on countries where the Foundation has priorexperience, such as those that have received OER grants and those in which the Global
Development and Population Program has funded education work.

20

4.

SUPPORTING ROBUSTTECHNICAL and INSTITUTIONALINFRASTRUCTURE

INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIESTECHNICAL BASISLEADERSHIPANCHOR INSTITUTIONSRESEARCH CAPACITYAs the OER strategy shifts to emphasize pathways to scale, the Foundation will backits investments with robust and flexible infrastructure. Many components of this infrastructure are valuable outcomes of the field building that has occurred over the past
decade, including developing strong anchor institutions and clear open licensing standards. Going forward, the Foundation will focus on building four specific elements ofinfrastructure:
TECHNICAL BASIS: The heart of OER is open licensing. Sustaining open licenses is aprerequisite for the field’s existence and ability to continue growing. In terms of actualtechnical features, OER must have the right metadata and be included in search engines
so materials are discoverable for users; must be built for interoperability so materials canbe used on different systems and transferred between users; must be compatible with avariety of digital platforms, particularly mobile platforms used in the developing world;and must be accessible and inclusively designed to meet the needs of all learners.

21

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESSUPPORTING ROBUST TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

LEADERSHIP: Thanks to the unwavering dedication of a core groupof leaders who have helped drive supportive policies and led efforts
to promote adoption, the OER field has blossomed.63 As OER aims
to transform mainstream education, the field requires more leaders
spanning all domains of OER-related work. These leaders can benefit
from coordination of advocacy efforts, the sharing of best practices for
implementation, and a collective sense of purpose and goals. Leaders
must be able to communicate effectively about OER to audiences
outside the field. Gathering and sharing compelling stories of OER’s
benefits and developing messages that tie OER to popular causes, likethe open access movement, will help cultivate new audiences. The
Foundation may support general communications and marketing for
OER as part of infrastructure, though communications work thattargets specific audiences would fall under the pathways.
photo : Michael B.

ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS: A few core organizations house the technical capacity for

OER and provide institutional support for the policy-related and technical work ofindividual leaders. Supporting the efforts of these institutions that serve as the field’s
backbone is crucial. The Foundation will act to ensure anchor institutions have strong
leaders, strategic and adaptive capabilities, financial health and sustainability, effective
external engagement, and reliable operations.64
RESEARCH CAPACITY: Because the OER field is still relatively young, its researchbase, while positive, is still small. Capacity is needed to conduct research on vital questions, such as the impact of open materials on student learning and the effectiveness ofdifferent paths to scale. While specific research questions and projects may be supported
through the Foundation’s pathways, basic capacity for research is a broader componentof the field’s infrastructure.

OER infrastructure efforts will address specific capacity issues in areas in which theFoundation is working and will also support field building for these infrastructure components, prioritizing areas where there are clear gaps and barriers to success.

22

LICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

5.

MANAGING the STRATEGY and
MONITORING PROGRESSThe Foundation is prioritizing and sequencing
potential pathways based on a set of factors.
As part of the shift to a problem-based approach, the Foundation will focus its resources
and attention on a limited number of pathways. By focusing on no more than three orfour pathways at any given time—while still maintaining a pipeline of potential pathways— we can ensure that we are making sufficient investments to meaningfully address
the selected problems. To make its selection, the Foundation will apply a specific set of factors. Pathways not initially selected for investments may receive exploratory grants froma small pool of opportunity funds or be broadly supported through infrastructure grants.

photo : Khasar Sandag, World BankLICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0

23

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESSThe factors the program team is using to prioritize pathways in the pipeline are:Benefits to users and the strategy: The Foundation will prioritize pathways that support

its overarching OER goal of equity for underserved students. Pathways that also support
other Foundation goals, such as Deeper Learning, would be especially compelling. A
pathway should have a tangible, persistent benefit to potential OER users, and it could
also have spillover effects like indirect benefits for other users or field building for OER.
Potential to succeed: The Foundation will invest in pathways for which there are viable

existing or potential grantees, allies, and champions. It will consider the broader context for the pathway and whether meaningful progress is possible within the strategy’s
timeframe. Pathways that scale up solutions that resonate with potential users and havepotential benefits validated by research and examples are more promising.
Philanthropy’s unique role: The Foundation seeks to invest in pathways where there issufficient momentum for success but momentum that needs philanthropic support totip the scales in that direction. The Foundation will also be mindful of how selecting aparticular pathway might influence the rest of the OER field or create transaction costs
for grantees and the Foundation.
Resources for execution: The Foundation looks to pursue pathways that excite potential

funding partners that can lend support in scaling to the mainstream. The Foundation
will also consider whether its internal capacity is sufficient in terms of both staff andresources to invest in the pathway’s success.
More detailed questions the program uses to assess each factor can be found in Appendix
A. The Foundation will also prioritize potential grants within selected pathways. Due
diligence for potential grantees will assess similar factors as those for pathways, in addition to considering grantees’ financial strength and grant history (if applicable).

FAC TORS TO PRIORITIZE PATHWAYS

BENEFITS TO USERS
AND THE STRATEGYPOTENTIAL
TO SUCCEED

PHILANTHROPY’SUNIQUE ROLERESOURCES FOREXECUTION• Equity• Partners• Momentum• Funding partners• Impact on users• Favorable context• Effects on the field• Internal capacity• Spillover effects• Demand• Supports Hewlett’s goals• Evidence base24

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESSThe Foundation will work to identify and mitigate
risks inherent in the strategy.
As we pursue a more focused strategy for mainstream adoption, we are mindful of anumber of risks we must mitigate. We expect that the greatest resistance to mainstream
adoption will come from publishers whose business models will be threatened if we
succeed. Many publishers, however, are beginning to see the inevitable future, so as wework with our grantees to develop business models around OER, we will also work withthe publishing industry to adapt their own business models to an environment in which
content is increasingly accessible. We also recognize that we may be criticized for myopic
thinking in concentrating so much of our OER strategy on open textbooks, but right
now this form of educational content is the most often used in education systems aroundthe world. While textbooks may someday be an artifact, today they are still commonplace so they remain our near-term focus. Our final concern is that, for now, Hewlett
remains the only major funder of infrastructure in the OER field. We have to take carethat by investing more significantly in pathways we do not put anchor institutions at
risk. The best way to mitigate this risk will be to bring along funders who do not see
themselves as OER funders but become converts to OER after seeing how it can solve
the problems they seek to solve.
As OER adoption makes the jump from early adopters to mainstream adopters, it islikely that people will begin asking tougher questions about the value of openness thanthe early adopters have been asking. For instance, mainstream adopters may question thevalue of allowing their creations to be revised or have concerns about the transactionalcosts of appropriate attribution. Our continued funding for OER infrastructure willallow our anchor grantees to prepare for the increased scrutiny and less nuanced understanding that mainstream adoption of OER is likely to bring.

25

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESS

Monitoring and evaluation will track progress
and guide future efforts.
Monitoring and evaluation will be essential to track progress, adapt to new conditions, and course-correct if necessary. As the Foundation develops pathways and funds
grantees, the program team will identify specific indicators for each pathway based on
approaches in the Foundation’s Education Program and the Foundation more broadly.
The Foundation will collaborate with its grantees to define relevant indicators, ensuring
compatibility with specific grants and goals at all times.
HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS WILL ASSESSTHE STRATEGY’S OVERALL PROGRESS.
A set of high-level indicators will inform whether the strategy is on track. In concert
with the Boston Consulting Group, the program team has created an OER dashboardthat assesses the current state of the OER field using metrics, baselines, data sources,
and targets. These indicators are highly aligned with the strategy’s new structure, as they
are divided between the K–12 and postsecondary domains and cover many of the coreoutcomes of the strategy (see Appendix B for a full list).
The percentage of educators, districts, and faculty adopting open resources as primarycourse material will likely be the most direct indicator of whether OER are reaching themainstream. Survey research will provide this data for both K–12 and higher education.
These dashboard metrics are currently U.S.-focused as international OER is geographicallydispersed, and high-level indicators may need to center more on the policy environment.
Additional metrics from the dashboard that contribute to this ultimate goal of adoption
can help pinpoint areas where the strategy is on or off track. For example, if content creation is increasing but educators are not discovering open materials at higher rates, theFoundation may need to redirect efforts around discoverability and technical support.
On the other hand, if awareness grows but adoption does not, this might signal that
additional work is required on quality, marketing, or other factors that influence educators’ decisions to switch to OER.
The Foundation may also refine and refresh the specific indicators in the dashboard as
new data sources become available and new opportunities emerge. For example, theFoundation could incorporate new international data sources to capture the results of
the international pathways that are ultimately selected. This adaptive approach will
ensure the OER dashboard always includes the best data available to track progress.

26

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESSDETAILED PATHWAY-LEVEL INDICATORSWILL MONITOR GRANTEES’ PROGRESS.
After deciding to pursue a particular pathway, the Foundation, in cooperation with
grantees, will develop a set of targeted indicators. This will be particularly helpful toguide near-term investments as the dashboard’s high-level indicators are primarily aimed
at monitoring long-term progress. Pathway-level indicators can also help provide greatercontext in areas where it is difficult to collect dashboard-level metrics, such as in international contexts with limited high-level data. Examples of the type of indicators that
could be used include:• Number of colleges, school districts, states, or countries adopting a particular innovation or reform promoted by a pathway (e.g., number of colleges offering a zero textbook
cost degree)• Volume of supply covering specific needs (e.g., percentage of K–12 grade levels andsubjects with effective, Common Core–aligned open materials covering the entire year)• Market penetration (e.g., percentage of children in a developing country with accessto books for early childhood literacy)

After developing a pathway’s indicators, the program team will collect baseline information from grantees and other experts. Tracking subsequent progress on each indicator will
help assess whether each pathway is on track or off track, similar to the set of high-levelindicators above. These indicators will relate to the high-level dashboard; for instance,
adoption of open textbooks through the postsecondary most-enrolled courses pathway
should drive increased adoption as measured in the dashboard. Individual grantees will
also continue to work with the Foundation to set grant-level metrics that assess how theirprogress in contributing to the pathway’s goals.

27

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESS

Collaboration with grantees andfunders will help scale results.
Collaboration is an essential component of the Foundation’s vision to make OER mainstream. As part of this strategy refresh, the Foundation is searching for areas where collaboration can provide the most value around its targeted objectives.
THE FOUNDATION CAN UNITE GRANTEESAROUND SHARED OBJECTIVES.
As the strategy pivots to apply OER as a solution to concrete problems, grantees may
find additional reasons to work together. The early stages of the strategy focused onfield building so collaboration could arise organically, creating links between grantees
that were not directed towards a particular end. Now that the strategy’s pathways target specific problems, grantees may need to collaborate more directly to pursue specificgoals that are out of reach for a single organization. A few principles can help guide theFoundation’s support for collaboration:
Coordinate grantees by establishing a shared vision, clear goals, and integrated strategy.

For grantees to effectively support one another, they must share a common vision, goals,
and strategy. This can be helpful at both the field-wide level, where champions have alreadybegun to develop a strategy to bring OER to the mainstream, and at the pathway level for
the Foundation. As the Foundation makes grants within its pathways, it will ensure that
grantees are closely connected to the same central goals and understand the work othergrantees are doing around the pathway. In many cases, this coordination may be sufficient
to support grantee-led collaboration where there are appropriate opportunities.
L ook for existing networks for collaboration that could be adapted to fit the strategy
if formal networks are desired. Because new networks can be time intensive and costly

to create, leveraging existing networks for collaboration is ideal. In existing networks,
grantees also have prior relationships and experience working together so they may be
more likely to collaborate effectively than a group being brought together for the firsttime. If no viable network exists, the Foundation may need to build a new one and willbudget for additional staff time and maintenance to launch this collaborative effort.
When using a network for collaboration, choose a level of integration that matches the
network’s goals. Different types of networks need different levels of integration to suc-ceed. Looser integration can be best for networks that primarily seek to share information. For example, the Hewlett Foundation’s Deeper Learning grantees are organized
into clusters that meet regularly. The requirement that grantees participate in clusters
helps the program coordinate its work in a particular area. On the other hand, tighter
integration can be helpful when grantees need to achieve a specific goal, such as providing coordinated technical support and advocacy to scale ZTC degrees. While it can bechallenging and costly to stipulate the terms of collaboration, doing so can guide grantees to achieve a specific goal.

28

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

MANAGING THE STRATEGY AND MONITORING PROGRESSAs the Foundation plans these collaborative approaches, we will solicit feedback from
grantees about which problems to target and how to structure both formal and informal
networks. This input from the field will help identify areas where the Foundation and its
grantees see value in collaboration.
A DIVERSE GROUP OF CO-FUNDERS CAN PROVIDEADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND SHARE LESSONS.
A problem-based approach to OER opens up new possibilities for co-funding relationships. In addition to working with other funders who directly support OER, theFoundation now also has opportunities to collaborate with those who are focused on thespecific problems that open materials may solve, such as increasing college completion
rates and promoting early childhood learning. By linking funders from these different
substantive interests, the group could coordinate a larger pool of resources to fight these
problems, helping new solutions reach scale.
In addition, funders could exchange valuable lessons about the problems targeted byeach pathway under the Foundation’s new approach. Funders with a long-standing substantive focus may be able to share lessons and expertise from past initiatives, such as
which paths to scale are most effective within the community college system. Similarly,
the Foundation and its grantees may be able to share knowledge and expertise about
OER with funders new to the field. This exchange of ideas could inform and strengthen
grantmaking for the Foundation and its partners going forward.

The Hewlett Foundation is excited to continue supporting OER at a time that the field isbuilding on its successes and transitions to solving some of the most pressing problems thatteachers and students face throughout the world. With this new problem-based approach, theFoundation looks forward to many more students benefitting from the promise of OER.

29

APPENDIX A:

FACTORS FOR PATHWAY SELECTION

BENEFITS TO USERS AND THE STRATEGYE Q U I T Y 		 Would the pathway benefit underserved populations?
I M PAC T O N U S E R S 		What type of benefit would the pathway provide (e.g., cost savings to students, improved teacher

practice, student learning)? How many users would the pathway benefit, and how deep wouldthat benefit be? Would the pathway’s impact persist over time?
S P I L LO V E R E F F E C T S 		
Would the pathway indirectly benefit other users or help build the OER field?
SUPPORT FOR THE
F O U N D AT I O N ’S P R O G R A M S 		Would the pathway link to other Foundation goals (e.g., Deeper Learning) and allow the pro-gram to be flexible?
POTENTIAL TO SUCCEED
PA R T N E R S 		
Are there organizations, including existing grantees, working on the problem? If not, are thereorganizations that would and could work on the problem with the Foundation’s support? Does
the pathway have champions, powerful allies, and funder interest?
FAV O R A B L E CO N T E X T 		
Does the pathway link to influential narratives beyond OER and take advantage of current

opportunities? Is meaningful progress achievable within the strategy’s timeframe?
D E M A N D 		
Would the solution resonate with potential users?

Do existing research and examples support the pathway’s potential benefits?

E V I D E N C E B A S E 		

PHILANTHROPY’S UNIQUE ROLE
MOMENTUM

	
Does this path have enough momentum to merit attention? If there is momentum, does thepathway need philanthropic investment to reach its tipping point for success?

E F F E C T S O N T H E F I E L D 		
What signal would the pathway send to the field about the Foundation’s priorities as a leader?

Would there be transaction costs, such as letting existing grantees go, or adverse field-building
consequences, such as other funders abandoning areas the Foundation used to fund?
RESOURCES FOR EXECUTIONF U N D I N G PA R T N E R S 		Are there other funders willing to contribute to the pathway?
I N T E R N A L C A PAC I T Y 		
Would the Foundation’s staff have the time and ability to pursue this work?

30

APPENDIX B:

OER DASHBOARD

K–12 INDICATORSA D O P T I O N 		
Percentage of K–12 educators using OER as primary material; number of large districts (> 50,000

students) that adopt complete OER curriculum packages; number of states that list complete OER
curriculum packages/textbooks on “Approved Resource List.”
Additional indicators that contribute to the adoption goal include:
CO N T E N T C R E AT I O N 		Percentage of K–12 educators reporting that OER is of equal or higher quality than traditional pub-lishers’ material.
CO N T E N T M A P P I N G 		
Percentage of K–12 educators who have discovered key grantee sites; percentage of total K–12

math and ELA courses with an “adequate” quantity of instructional materials mapped to grade,
subject, and standards.
AG G R E G AT I O N 		
Number of K–12 grades that have complete OER curriculum packages/textbooks in specific subjects.
AWA R E N E S S 		
Percentage of K–12 educators who are “somewhat aware,” “aware,” and “very aware” of OER.
R E V I E W / Q UA L I T Y CO N T R O L 		 Percentage of rated material out of total available at major platforms.

HIGHER EDUCATION INDICATORSA D O P T I O N 		Percentage of faculty using OER as primary course material in at least one course; number of states/

governments undertaking OER initiatives for higher education.
Additional indicators that support adoption include:
CO N T E N T C R E AT I O N 		Percentage of faculty and chief academic officers reporting that OER is of equal or higher quality than

traditional publishers’ material.
CO N T E N T M A P P I N G 		Percentage of faculty who have discovered key grantee sites; percentage of aware faculty who say thatthe ease of finding OER is equal to or better than that for traditional publishers’ material.
AG G R E G AT I O N 		Percentage of 50 most popular college courses with a high-quality open textbook available.
AWA R E N E S S 		Percentage of faculty and chief academic officers who are “somewhat aware,” “aware,”and “very aware” of OER.
R E V I E W / Q UA L I T Y CO N T R O L 		 Percentage of rated material out of total available at major platforms.

31

ENDNOTES

1

Jade Boyd, “OpenStax College’s Free Textbooks Have Saved Students $30 Million,” October 14, 2014, Rice University News& Media, <http://news.rice.edu/2014/10/14/openstax-colleges-free-textbooks-have-saved-students-30-million-2/>. MIT
OpenCourseWare, “Site Statistics,” accessed April 29, 2015, <http://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/>.

Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2015 <https://stateof.creativecommons.org/report/>23Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014

4

Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014

5

Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014
Boston Consulting Group, “The Open Educational Resources ecosystem: An evaluation of the OER movement’s current stateand its progress toward mainstream adoption,” June 2013, slide 5.

67

Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Figure 1–2 (Ch. 1).

United States Government Accountability Office, “College Textbooks: Students Have Greater Access to Textbook
Information,” June 2013, <http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655066.pdf>.
8World Bank Task Force on Higher Education and Society, “Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise,”
2000, <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/
peril_promise_en.pdf>.

9See, e.g., Amado, M., Ashton, K., Ashton, S., Bostwick, J., Clements, G., Drysdale, J., Francis, J., Harrison, B., Nan, V., Nisse,A., Randall, D., Rino, J., Robinson, J., Snyder, A., Wiley, D., & Anonymous, Project Management for Instructional Designers,
accessed April 29, 2015, retrieved from http://pm4id.org/. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial
ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) license; and “Wikipedia: WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem,” accessed April 29, 2015, <http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Murder_Madness_and_Mayhem>.

10 

College Board, “Trends in College Pricing,” 2014, p. 12, Figure 1, <https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/
misc/trends/2014-trends-college-pricing-report-final.pdf>.

11 

Tidewater Community College, “Another Honor for Nation’s First Textbook-Free Degree,” April 23, 2014, <http://www.tcc.
edu/news/press/2014/zdegree0423.htm>.

12 

13

Utah Open Textbook Project, accessed April 20, 2015, <http://utahopentextbooks.org/>.

Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA), June 2012, <http://www.tessafrica.net/files/tessafrica/Briefing_note_general_June_2012.pdf>.
14

Jade Boyd, “OpenStax College’s Free Textbooks Have Saved Students $30 Million,” October 14, 2014, Rice University News& Media, <http://news.rice.edu/2014/10/14/openstax-colleges-free-textbooks-have-saved-students-30-million-2/>. MIT
OpenCourseWare, “Site Statistics,” accessed April 29, 2015, <http://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/>.

15 

Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014, <https://stateof.creativecommons.org/report/>.

16 Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014.

17 Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014.

18 Creative Commons, “State of the Commons,” 2014.

19 

Boston Consulting Group, “The Open Educational Resources ecosystem: An evaluation of the OER movement’s current stateand its progress toward mainstream adoption,” June 2013, slide 5.

20 Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Figure 1–2 (Ch. 1).

21 See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_educational_practices

22 See, e.g., Rachel Leifer and Denis Udall, “Support the Common Core with the Right Instructional Materials,” Phi Delta
Kappan, September 2014, <http://pdk.sagepub.com/content/96/1/21.full.pdf+html>; William H. Schmidt and Leland S.
Cogan, “The Myth of Equal Content,” Multiple Measures, November 2009, <http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/nov09/vol67/num03/The-Myth-of-Equal-Content.aspx>; Matthew M. Chingos and Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst,“Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core,” April 2012, <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/4/10%20curriculum%20chingos%20whitehurst/0410_curriculum_chingos_whitehurst.pdf>.

23 

24

 nited States Government Accountability Office, “College Textbooks: Students Have Greater Access to Textbook
U
Information,” June 2013, <http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655066.pdf>.

25

S tudents who did not complete college are over 50 percent more likely than students who completed their degrees toreport that the cost of textbooks was a major financial barrier. Jean Johnson, Jon Rochkind, Amber Ott, and Samantha
DuPont, “With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them: Myths and Realities About Why So Many Students Fail to Finish College,”
Public Agenda, p. 31, <http://www.publicagenda.org/files/theirwholelivesaheadofthem.pdf>.

26

E than Senack, “Fixing the Broken Textbook Market: How Students Respond to High Textbook Costs and Demand
Alternatives,” U.S. PIRG Education Fund and The Student PIRGS, January 2014, <http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/
reports/NATIONAL%20Fixing%20Broken%20Textbooks%20Report1.pdf>.

27

I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, “Opening the Curriculum: Open Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2014,”
Babson Survey Research Group, October 2014.

28

E than Senack, “Fixing the Broken Textbook Market: How Students Respond to High Textbook Costs and Demand
Alternatives,” U.S. PIRG Education Fund and The Student PIRGS, January 2014, <http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/
reports/NATIONAL%20Fixing%20Broken%20Textbooks%20Report1.pdf>.

32

E N D N O T E S (continued)

29

 orld Bank Task Force on Higher Education and Society, “Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise,”W
2000, <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/peril_promise_en.pdf>. Devesh Kapur and Megan Crowley, “Beyond the ABCs: Higher Education and Developing Countries,”
Center for Global Development, January 15, 2008, <http://www.cgdev.org/files/15310_file_HigherEd.pdf>.

30

 orld Bank Task Force on Higher Education and Society, “Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise,”W
2000, <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/
peril_promise_en.pdf>.

31

L eah Taylor and Jim Parsons, “Improving Student Engagement,” Current Issues in Education, 2011: 14(1), <http://cie.asu.
edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/viewFile/745/162>.

32

 merican Association of Community Colleges, “Highlights of College Board Trends in 2014 College Pricing and Student
A
Financial Aid Reports,” December 5, 2014, <http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Advocacy/AdvocacyNews/Pages/12052014_1.
aspx>. David Deming and Susan Dynarski, “Into College, Out of Poverty? Policies to Increase the Postsecondary Educational
Attainment of the Poor,” NBER working paper, 2009, p. 25–27. In the “Quasi-Experimental Studies Table,” rows 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,
12 show roughly 4 percent gains in enrollment per $1000 of tuition subsidy. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w15387.pdf>.

33

J ean Johnson, Jon Rochkind, Amber Ott, and Samantha DuPont, “With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them: Myths andRealities About Why So Many Students Fail to Finish College,” Public Agenda, p. 5, <http://www.publicagenda.org/files/
theirwholelivesaheadofthem.pdf>.

34

L umen Learning, “Success Story: Tidewater Community College,” accessed April 23, 2015, <http://lumenlearning.com/
success-story-tidewater/>.

35

I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, “Opening the Curriculum: Open Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2014,”
Babson Survey Research Group, October 2014.

36

Personal communication with OpenStax team, August 2015.

37

L umen Learning, “Success Story: Tidewater Community College,” accessed April 23, 2015, <http://lumenlearning.com/
success-story-tidewater/>. Note: tuition data in graph above comes from Lumen Learning, but textbook data specific to
Tidewater’s business administration degree comes from Tidewater’s report (see footnote 30)38Richard Sebastian, personal communication. May 201539

T idewater Community College, “The Z-Degree: Removing Textbook Costs as a Barrier to Student Success through an OERBased Curriculum,” p. ii.

40

Education Week, <http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/03/04/most-math-curricula-found-to-be-out.html>.

41

“ETV14
Decrease the Cost of K–12 Textbooks,” California Performance Review, accessed April 23, 2015, <http://cpr.ca.gov/
cpr_report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_3_Education_Training_and_Volunteerism/ETV14.html>.
David Rapp, “The End of Textbooks?” Scholastic Administr@tor Magazine, November/December 2008, <http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3750551>. Michael Alison Chandler and Hayley Tsukayama, “Tablets Proliferate in Nation’s
Classrooms, Taking a Swipe at the Status Quo,” Washington Post, May 17, 2014, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/
education/tablets-proliferate-in-nations-classrooms-and-take-a-swipe-at-the-status-quo/2014/05/17/faa27ba4-dbbd11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html>. Geoffrey Fletcher, Dian Schaffhauser, Douglas Levin, “Out of Print: Reimagining the
K–12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), 2012, <http://www.setda.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SETDA_Out_of_Print_FNL.pdf>.

42 “From Adoption to Practice: Teacher Perspectives On the Common Core,” Education Week Research Center, 2014, <http://
www.edweek.org/media/ewrc_teacherscommoncore_2014.pdf>.

43 

F or details on state ELL funding, see Maria Millard, “State Funding Mechanisms for English Language Learners,” Education
Commission of the States, January 2015, <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/16/94/11694.pdf>.

44 

Council of the Great City Schools, “Instructional Materials for English Language Learners in Urban Public Schools, 2012-13,”
2012, <http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Instructional%20Materials%20in%20Urban%20
Public%20Schools%20Report.pdf>.

45 

Association of American Publishers, “Instructional Materials Funding Facts,” accessed April 23,
2015, <http://publishers.org/schoolfundingfacts/>. Laura Hazard Owen, “What Apple Is Wading
Into: A Snapshot Of The K–12 Textbook Business,” Gigaom, January 21, 2012, <https://gigaom.
com/2012/01/21/419-the-abcs-and-123s-of-apple-and-the-k-12-textbook-market/>.

46 “Education First: An Initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General,” 2012, p. 18, <http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/
files/EdFirst_G29383UNOPS_lr.pdf>.

47 


UNICEF,“Early Childhood Development: A Statistical Snapshot: Building Better Brains and Sustainable Outcomesfor Children,” 2014, <http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/ECD_Brochure_2014_197.pdf>.

48 

In countries where government policies do not restrict publishing, private sector publishers are often still wary.

49  NESCO Institute for Statistics, “School and Teaching Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Analysis of the 2011 UIS Regional
U
Data Collection on Education,” 2012, <http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/ib9-regional-education-africa2012-en-v5.pdf>.

50 “ Education First: An Initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General,” 2012, <http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/files/
EdFirst_G29383UNOPS_lr.pdf>.

51 

33

E N D N O T E S (continued)
Megan Beckett, “Distributing OER in the Developing World,” March 19, 2014, <https://meganbeckett.wordpress.
com/2014/03/19/distributing-oer-in-the-developing-world/>.

52 Interview with Cory Heyman, Room to Read, April 3, 2015.

53 “From Adoption to Practice: Teacher Perspectives On the Common Core,” Education Week Research Center, 2014, <http://
www.edweek.org/media/ewrc_teacherscommoncore_2014.pdf>.

54 

Liana Heitin, “Most Math Curricula Found to Be Out of Sync With Common Core,” March 4, 2015, Education Week, <http://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/03/04/most-math-curricula-found-to-be-out.html>.

55 

The Boston Consulting Group, “The Open Education Resources Ecosystem: An Evaluation of the OER Movement’s Current
State and its Progress Toward Mainstream Adoption,” Hewlett Foundation, June 2013, <http://www.hewlett.org/sites/
default/files/The%20Open%20Educational%20Resources%20Ecosystem_1.pdf>.

56 

K–12 OER Collaborative, “About the K–12 OER Collaborative,” accessed April 15, 2015, <http://k12oercollaborative.org/
about/>.

57 See, e.g., a 2013 Grantmakers for Education study on philanthropic strategies targeting English language learners: Grantmakers
for Education, “Educating English Language Learners: Grantmaking Strategies for Closing America’s Other Achievement Gap,”
April 2013, <https://edfunders.org/sites/default/files/Educating%20English%20Language%20Learners_April%202013.pdf>.

58 

Council of the Great City Schools, “Instructional Materials for English Language Learners in Urban Public Schools, 2012-13,” 2012,<http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Instructional%20Materials%20in%20Urban%20Public%20
Schools%20Report.pdf>.

59 

USAID, “Tikwere Interactive Radio Instruction (IRI): Mid-Term Evaluation,” October 2009, <http://www.gem2.org/sites/
default/files/Tikwere%20Evaluation%20FINAL%2012.28.09.pdf>.

60 See, e.g., the University of the People’s partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide
accredited, low-cost higher education to refugees and asylum seekers: Heath Wickline, “University of the People Offers
Tuition-Free Higher Education to Refugees,” November 25, 2014, Work in Progress: The Hewlett Foundation Blog, <http://
www.hewlett.org/blog/posts/university-people-offers-tuition-free-higher-education-refugees>.

61 

UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning, “Survey on Governments’ Open Educational Resources (OER) Policies,” June 2012,<http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/themes/Survey_On_Government_OER_Policies.pdf>.

62 

63 

ORS Impact, “Open Educational Resources Advocacy Cluster Evaluation: Final Memo of Key Learnings,” September 2013.

Factors based on “Delivering On Strategy: A Grantmaker’s Guide to Organizational Effectiveness,” prepared in 2014 by
Redstone Strategy Group for the Hewlett Foundation.

64 34