Open Source Software as Solution in State Funded Community Colleges Rachel Cumberbatch JC Preston Becky Mercer Peter Schroeder Executive Summary Community colleges have become extremely important in the world of higher education. The system has matured from the idea of serving as a transfer school to degree granting state colleges. Community colleges normally admit students from the community, verses state colleges who serve a much larger population. The colleges run on an open admission which means that anyone with a high school diploma or a GED can be educated at the school. The policy can be beneficial and allows students with lower testing skills or academic preparedness to work towards a degree. The community college system as a whole differs dramatically from the large universities. Research institutions such as Purdue University are able to enter into agreements with large corporate companies, such as dell, more easily. These universities are more heavily funded by state government, international connections are better established, and students often come from high economic backgrounds. In our project we have chosen to address the problem of tight budgets and need to keep up with the rapidly changing technology in community colleges. Our white paper will examine the issue on either side, offering both the benefits and negatives of open source software in the community college system. We will also detail some of the possible products that can be incorporated into the system. The issues Community colleges are a strong force in public institutions. According to the American Association of Community Colleges there are 1157 community colleges; 979 public institutions and 148 private institutions. Community colleges provide education to students seeking an education, many who are untraditional students and from a large range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The public system currently holds the highest number of minority students and demands an annual tuition of only $2,076. The colleges are financed primarily on state funds which a proportional contribution from tuition and local community funds. As the federal and state governments work to improve upon large deficits the funds available to community colleges and higher education has been flat-lined or reduced. The effects of a tightened state budget and political maneuvers are exacerbated in state funded community colleges. They do not have as much freedom to change tuition and fee prices for students as a privately funded community college would have. Although, both types of community colleges have a similar mission a state funded college often times serves a more diverse student body. The community college system relies on part time or visiting professors. This creates a difficult atmosphere as the system tries to find the more effective way to educate students while having a large professor turnover rate. Community colleges strive to prepare their students for life in a technical and rapidly changing workforce. Community college professors, among others in the academic community, search for new ways to share information. A network of communication is important for a free transfer of ideas between students, faculty and students and among the faculty and their colleagues. Chris Lehmann, the technology coordinator at the Beacon school commented on his frustration with the traditional closed source programs by saying, “I was frustrated by my inability to provide my students with many of the basics that a work or college environment would want them to know how to use. […] To be able to do the same amount of technology infusion without Open Source would have been prohibitively expensive.1” Especially in private community colleges, problems arise between their mission and the “profit first mentality 1” of many closed source companies such as Microsoft. What is the problem? More students are attending college in Indiana than ever before. Both the student and the government expect establishments of higher education to provide all those enrolled in the school to be given the tools and training needed to excel in the rapidly changing job market. The face of business has changed from local to global and colleges are scrambling to find ways to educate their students on a global scale. Similarly the type of business has changed from largely industrial to largely service oriented. Community colleges, although charged with educating the local population, are finding it necessary to expand their teaching mission to incorporate a global audience. The rapidly changing industries have created a demand for rapidly changing teaching methods. Government has turned to colleges and universities as a major force in working to increase the state economy. The major research universities such as Purdue University and Indiana University are hoping to create new jobs through research and the creation of new products and methods. The community college system is working to serve local populations and spur the economy through extension work, by graduating more students with degrees, encouraging entrepreneurship. Despite the large expectations of colleges money for high education has been flat lined as state government attempts to get back on its feet from a deep budget deficit. How do we define the problem? The state funded community college system is in need of new policies which allow for teaching to be done more effectively for a lower financial cost. Technical systems are rapidly changing and it is imperative that the community colleges possess the latest technology with which to train their technical students. A more efficient network must be created in order to communicate with peer institution and connect the smaller community college with the efforts of university and international academic partners. A better method must also be established to provide knowledge to the local community itself. Who has reacted to the problem thus far and in what way? A number of research universities and well established community colleges have begun to experiment with using open source software. In 2004 Foothill-DeAnza, a community college in California, received a $600,000 grant in order to extend the use of open source technology in their system. Foothill-DeAnza is a high profile school with progressive faculty and an administrative team who, in many ways, were ahead of the game in beginning to incorporate open source technology into their system. The leaders of Indiana higher education have not overlooked the prospect of open source software. In 2003, the Chronicle for Higher Education reported on open source software as an alternative to commercial products. The Chronicle for Higher Education is a biweekly tabloid centered on the issues of higher education and written for the leaders of higher education. Open source software has seen some success in K-12 education. The Beacon School in New York has begun using open source in their classrooms and has found great success with it. Chris Lehmann, Technology coordinator at The Beacon School, writes in his 1999 article, Open Source and Education, “We use Linux as a cross-platform file server, web server, email server, IRC server, mailing-list server, etc. And it's allowed us the ability to do more than we ever dreamed of. To be able to do the same amount of technology infusion without Open Source would have been prohibitively expensive.” But again, The Beacon School is a science and technology school for those students who exceed the standard of the New York State Regents. Work with using open source in academic environments has begun. Still, it is confined to those schools who are well funded and who deal mainly with technology students. The Technology Since we're looking at open source software that could be used in a community college environment, then the best thing we would want to do is to look at several types of open source software. With that in mind, let's look at 3 different types. The first would be that of the category of Applied Fields. “Applied fields” suggest the idea of applying knowledge of a particular subject. With that in mind, a few examples in this category would be (but not limited to) Electronic Design, Finance and Mathematics. The next category after Applied Fields that would make sense to include in a software package for a community college would be that of Document Editing. This would include (again not limited to) word processing, note taking, and PDF manipulation. The last category that would be useful in a community college that is worthwhile to note is that of the Networking and Internet. The main reason behind this is because without this group of applications/programs being available, then the users of this new “open source school” would have no way of getting online and doing daily objectives that we take for granted. The problem with commercial versions of this category of software is that it can tend to get very expensive very quick. So anything dealing with Email, web browser technology, or any other communication based applications would be a great help in relieving the strain put on a budget of a community college. To gain a fuller understanding of what is actually available in these fields, let's look at some specific pieces of software that people might be familiar with already that would help to fit these needs of Applied Fields, Document Editing, and Networking and Internet. Applied Fields- FreePCB FreePCB is a distributors open source software answer to Orcad's Layout. Layout is very familiar with those of us in EET. We have become very used to using it to develop our own electrical boards to use with circuits. FreePCB is basically the bare minimum route of getting what we (as members of a major) would want to use to get a finished product. Document Editing - Open Office.org Open Office.org is almost identical to what Microsoft Office has to offer, but without having to spend as much on it. It also has a few other applications within it that are not available in Microsoft's suite. There is plenty of support available on the website when it is needed. Networking and Internet – Firefox Firefox, a product by Mozilla is roughly twice as fast as Internet Explorer in displaying most web pages and also better protects one from viruses, pop-ups, and spyware than Internet Explorer; this award winning alternative to Microsoft's product is gaining steam all the time. Not only is it easy to use, but it's very highly customizable. Since Mozilla is a non-profit organization, their sole purpose is to make their users content in what they offer and not to make a profit in every way imaginable, unlike Microsoft. Argument for open source Community colleges often lack the resources and facilities of many larger universities. In an effort to over come these shortcomings, community colleges should adapt open source software such as OpenOffice and Sakai. The flexibility of this software combined with the opportunity to save money make open source ideal for community colleges. OpenOffice offers many of the same functions of Microsoft Office without the $300 price tag. Sakai, a course management system that can be modified for needs of teachers and student, is the focus of a $600,000 grant for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District in California. The Pros of Open Source Software The use of open source software provides colleges with many advantages such as financial flexibility, increased security, interoperability and an opportunity to contribute to the open source community. Although many colleges receive a considerable discount when purchasing software licenses compared to the general public, they are usually forced to purchase new software every couple of years and are often forced to deal with limited technical support. Open source software, in most cases, is unique in that there is less emphasis on licenses and a greater focus on services (A Guide to OSS). Support Users of open source software are lucky enough to have access to technical support nearly 24 hours a day, from a variety of sources around the globe. Many times the support is free to the user. This is partially a result of the inherent nature of open source where everyone has access to the source code. The access to the code allows for a better understanding of the software, and the ability to fit the software to the organization's needs, and in this case, colleges. Troubleshooting and access to tech support is crucial to any software, whether it is open source or proprietary. By adopting open source software, support options are increased considerably. First is a traditional commercial support model in which the college pays a company (or individual) to provide support. This is comparable to a proprietary support option. Second is the formation of an in house support system in which a college employee is responsible for support. In choosing this option, an expert on OSS is recommended. The most desirable support option is the reliance on the development and user community. This technique is very valuable to many users of OSS as they can obtain information on line through mailing lists or other methods such as blogs or discussion boards. As silly as it may sound to rely on the development and user community, in 1997, “InfoWorld awarded the “Best Technical Support” award to the “Linux User Community,” beating all proprietary software vendors’ technical support for the year” (How to evaluate OSS/FS). More and more support is becoming available as broadband continues to grow in this country and around the world. Interoperability Many users may think they really don't need access to source code and are happy with the software they currently use. Some things to consider when comparing open source with traditional commercial software is that OSS “support greater interoperability between systems and enable system sharing” (A Guide to OSS). We live in a world is that is becoming more and more dependent on computer hardware and software. Any college looking to stay on the cutting edge should consider the dilemma of staying current while being able to stay within budget constraints. The ability to share resources with other colleges around the country and the world will help the colleges’ ability to turn out students who are educated and well trained in current technologies. Therefore maximizing network interoperability will prove to be a valuable asset. Open source software will allow for this at little or no cost to the college. There is much to be said for ability to stay current and save money, but open source software opens the door many other possibilities that proprietary (or commercial) cannot match. In acquiring licenses from a proprietary vendor such as Microsoft, there are many restrictions imposed upon the college. For example there may be limitations on the number of users for each license and the time in which you can legally use the software. In contrast, “open source software licenses are not concerned with the mode or scale of usage” (A Guide to OSS). This is a huge advantage for a school who is not as technologically advanced or well funded as others. The variation in OSS licenses deals mainly with the extent to which source code can me manipulated, whether it is extension, enhancement or redistribution of code (A Guide to OSS). Security Some may fear that OSS may take security for granted in its quest to keep costs down and provide interoperability, but this is simply not the case. While not all open source software is secure as their proprietary brethren, many well established open source programs, such as OpenOffice.org 2.0 and Mozilla Firefox have undergone much scrutiny by development and user community. A security issue can be fixed in little time in open source software because access to the source code allows for the ability to “remove a vulnerability immediately” (How to evaluate OSS/FS). Added functionality and analysis of software security are two further advantages of OSS. For example let's say that the college has just started using OpenOffic.org 2.0. In the past an English teacher may have had some issues with Microsoft Word. Now that the teacher is using OpenOffice.org 2.0 Writer (the equivalent of Microsoft Word) they can add features as they see fit. Maybe they want include a customized editing/peer review tool. OpenOffice.org 2.0 writer gives the teacher full control over the class in way they never could with Microsoft Word. In modifying source code, colleges are able to craft simple interfaces where they see fit and the can make sure the program is used for their intended purpose. More and more these days flexibility is necessary in the college system. Older programs may have produced documents that are no longer compatible with the latest and greatest proprietary software. Open source software strives to overcome this issue giving the college access to the code which simplifies the movement of important data and documents from the old system. There is nothing worse than losing the hard work of past professors and students. When dealing with proprietary software, the costs can add up quickly and the college may be forced to part with some of documents that aren't as important as others. The evolution of OSS There are many advantages to open source software such as OpenOffice.org 2.0. However before considering a shift from proprietary to open source, a college must assess its benefits. It is quite possible that some colleges may do just fine with proprietary software, and they are able to stay within budget when it is time to acquire new licenses. The use of open source software requires a paradigm shift within the college or university. New positions may have to be created to deal with coding and tech support. A good amount of research is necessary to figure what software will fit the needs of the curriculum and the information technology infrastructure of the school. In the long run, the college who makes the switch to open source now will see many benefits in the future like financial flexibility and the opportunity to contribute the open source user and development community. Argument against open source While there appear to be many benefits of incorporating open source technologies into a college setting, it is also important to note the potential drawbacks to implementing such a wide-scale endeavor. Among those hazards one has to consider when shifting to a dependence on open source technologies is their very source. Open source software relies on the work of individuals, or small groups of volunteers. Their ideologies may appear to be noble; however, the developers of these technologies are not bound by the same societal demands of an industrial manufacturer. Closed source software is often bound by warrantee, is tied to a technical support component, and is associated to a company’s name, and thus their accountability. When purchasing closed source software, one can have the assurance that a company is not only backing their product, but, in most cases, the company is already established, and the customer can knowledgeably research the products. Such is not the case with open source software, whose creators can be a conglomeration of various programmers, with limited checks and balances. There is no guarantee that an open source project will ever be updated, that it will be relatively free of bugs, or that it will guarantee the level of satisfaction of a marketed product. It may also be important to consider the mainstream understanding of closed source software. While the Microsoft Suite is not an open source, most computer users are acquainted with the suite, and could operate any program within it with relative ease. Introducing, then, a new suite of software into a college setting may only hamper the progress of a student, forcing them to take on the responsibility of relearning how to generate documents, rather than simply allowing them to focus on their studies. OSS as a detriment to community college resources While the implementation of open source software would appear to be a very cost-effective measure for students, one must take into account the added financial strains related to the maintenance of an OSS suite in a community college setting. Upgrades to OSS software may always be free; however, due to the nature of OSS, a volunteer driven resource, there is neither technical support, nor necessarily accountability, on the part of the manufacturer of the software. This situation then is places the strain of upkeep and maintenance of the suite on the community college. It would be the college’s burden not only to hire programming specialists, in lieu of IT specialists, but to also be accountable for making updates available to the student body, when they are available, as opposed to having auto-update options that are available with closed source software. Hacking and information security is always of high concern on college campuses. Integration of OSS could also mean integration of vulnerabilities. Because the source code is available to anyone, it is much easier for hackers to adjust the code in any way desirable. To defend against this possibility, it would either be necessary for each student to be savvy enough to be able to recognize deviant code, or the college would have to find a way to standardize the code that the students actually download. At this point in time, programming abilities are not so prevalent in the population that a community college could expect its students to be able to troubleshoot their own applications. The college would have to step in and provide standardization, another hidden cost of wide-spread OSS usage. A burden on the students It can be argued that most college students at this point in time are likely to be users of the Microsoft family of software. Its proliferation in state schools is undeniable. Many students grew up producing Word documents, assembling PowerPoint presentations, and charting data with the use of Excel spreadsheets. Take these same students, and explain to them that they will now use Open Office. We must consider the human factor when considering the switch to open source technologies. Open Office has little to no name recognition to many students, let alone a reputable credibility. Mandating that students learn a new office suite, internet browser, or even operating system throws another wrench into the mix of all those things required of new college students. Incoming freshmen already face the struggles of adapting to new environments, class situations, and responsibilities that learning a new application skill set would only guarantee to further frazzle them. The question of money One may argue the strong benefit to implementing an OSS suite at the college level may be a great financial decision to make since the software is most often free. We must first take into account, though the benefits of a college having a license agreement with a specific supplier of closed source software. Colleges are already offered a discounted rate on the software suite, depending upon their willingness to be contractually bound to using the suite. As a result, not only is the college’s system homogenous, but the students are also offered discounted rates for personal copies of the software. Applications that would cost several hundred dollars are often offered for much less than the cost of a single textbook. While the suite must be purchased at all, and not simply downloaded, students gain the chance to take advantage of a deal. Intangibly speaking, the college also develops a rapport with the client to whom it is contracted. Companies who manufacture closed source software may be more likely to pursue graduates of colleges with whom they are already affiliated, over those students who, arguably, may not even be acquainted with their software. Idealism and Open Source The goals of the Open Source movement appear to be noble. Many software users back the proliferation of OSS with the argument that software should be free, that all software should be made to be compatible with an open source format, and that source code should be available to the user. We may know that these goals are utopian, but in that token, they are also idealized. Commerce runs on the principle that invention and marketing will lead to financial success. The open source movement tends to berate this philosophy. We currently live in a capitalistic society, which protects under copyrighting the ideas and product designs of individuals. If one were to at some point require those ideas and designs to be open to everyone, as in source code to software, those copyrights would be compromised. In the same vein, the goals of colleges are to spark the minds of those wishing to pursue higher education. Many great minds have gotten their start in college and have used college resources as springboards for discovery and invention. With the promotion of open source in the college setting, we may very well stifle some of the drive to pursue greatness. It would be very hard to say whether or not Henry Ford would have invented the assembly line, or Bill Gates, Microsoft, if not for the promise of personal profit. It may be nice to believe that people would continue to strive to ameliorate fields that once promised riches, but no longer do; however, there is no way of knowing, for certain if this would be the case. Ultimately then, the question is whether or not an open-source driven campus would foster or ebb the drive for students to produce. If one creates a society where the work of one is shared by all without compensation, will students be motivated to share their creations or to produce at all, knowing that another may do the work for them? The decision to mandate open source software cannot only take into consideration matters of cost, but also the message that such a move would send to students and other colleges alike. Conclusion The use of open source software will allow educators more flexibility to be creative within the technologies they use within their classrooms. There are definite advantages and disadvantages to the use of the open source software. The decision remains more with the individual than with the organization as a whole. It is vital that the technology one learns to use in college is the same technology that they will be using in their professional career. There already exist applications which parallel the popular close source software. It is doubtful that the use of open source will free considerable funds for use in other areas of the university, but it will rather offer an increased level of creativity and freedom. Australian Government Information Management Office. (April 18, 2005). A Guide to Open Source Software. Retrieved February 22, 2006 from http://www.agimo.gov.au/_sourceit/sourceit/oss. Boggs, George. Taylor Ray. “Letter to Governors.” 15 May 2003. American Associate of Community Colleges. 23 February 2006. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/State_Budget_Cuts/governors_letter.pdf Gunton, Neil. Open Source Pros and Cons. 1 June 2005. 21 February 2006. http://www.neilgunton.com/open_source_pros_cons/. Jaschik, Scott. “The Abandonment of Community Colleges.” 16 Jan. 2006 Inside Higher Ed. 23 Feb. 2006. http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/16/cc Lehmann, Chris. “Open Source and Education.” Dec. 1999. Beacon School 23 Feb. 2006. http://www.beaconschool.org/~clehmann/opensource.html Mozilla Corporation, Firefox. “Rediscover the Web: Mozilla Firefox”. Retrieved 2/21/06 from http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ Sun Microsystems. “About Open Office”. OpenOffice.org: Home. Retrieved 2/21/06 from http://about.openoffice.org/index.html Wheeler, David A. (January 22, 2006)How to Evaluate Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) Programs. Retrieved February 22, 2006 from http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_eval.html. Wright, Allen (8/14/2005). “FreePCB- Userguide”. 2005. Freeware PCB User Guide. Retrieved 2/21/06 from http://www.freepcb.com