Talk:Education Committee Charter: Difference between revisions
(→Scope and remit: agree on training -- further thoughts) |
m (RexxS moved page Talk:Education Committee to Talk:Education Committee Charter: more specific title; will re-use "Education Committee" as a landing page) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 14:19, 3 November 2012
Scope and remit
I was wondering about all this.
As presented, the scope says "education", which is not so surprising. There is education as practised in educational institutions, and that is one aspect that is implied here: an interface with the "education sector". To take an example that is close to hand, the interface of Wikimedia and the "cultural sector" has attracted the acronym GLAM, and that is read in terms of institutions and those who work in them.
That would not be all of it, though. The WMUK current work on "educational projects" surely also covers training efforts; and the VLE. I would say it also ought to cover "open educational resources" (OER), which is the expected jargon in this area. Aim 1 talks about free educational resources and their provision; which will do for a start, I suppose, OER being a slippery concept.
Perhaps I would be helped by some indication of what the delegated powers are likely to be. I'm not quarrelling with the stated aims as such.
Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose my mindset sees training as part of education, so I don't bother to spell out the training aspects. Perhaps we should substitute "education and training" for "education" where it appears in the text? I'd probably like to elaborate on our mission to engage with the different sectors as well: schools; further education; higher education; lifelong learning. Then there is our function in training new volunteers to edit Wikimedia projects, which I see as subtly different from provision of OER to everyone.
- I expect that the delegated powers would be whatever we could comfortably manage: planning, representing WMUK, project delivery. I'm quite happy with Martin being our named budget holder, but an alternative would be to delegate a budget to the committee. We'd get a shared ability to approve and collective responsibility, but we'd have to be far more conscious of potential conflicts of interest. It all needs to be thought about, and I only meant to put something up to be a starting point for now. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)