Page:The battle for open.pdf/139

 sector. This heady mix proved too irresistible for many technology or education journalists.

This analysis also reveals why other open education initiatives haven’t garnered as much attention. They often seek to supplement or complement education, thus ruining the ‘education is broken’ argument. Similarly, they are often conducted by those who work in higher education, which undermines the narrative of external agents promoting change on a sector that is out of touch. And lastly, they are supported by not-­​­for-​­profit institutions, which does not fit the model of new, disruptive businesses emerging. If one wanted to make an argument for disruption, then open textbooks could make a convincing case, since they undermine an established business with digital, ­low-​­cost alternatives, but as projects like OpenStax are ­not-­​­for-​­profit, they do not fit the Silicon Valley narrative as neatly as MOOCs.

One further aspect of the Silicon Valley and disruption narrative is that it demands a 'year zero' mentality. It is a much more convincing story if someone can be said to have invented a new way of working. Because complete genesis invention is rare, most work is tinkering with old ideas and improving them, this often requires either a wilful ignorance of past work or an imaginative reworking of it.

Back to the Future, Again
2013 saw a number of ­MOOC-​­related discoveries and breakthroughs, which bore at least a passing resemblance to established educational practice. For example, we saw the BBC (Coughlan 2013) announcing Harvard’s innovative trialling of the '­SPOC – ­a small, private online course' that would take the advantages of MOOCs, but place them in a safer, enclosed environment for