3 ms·

For anyone who has been following the furor over Twitter's moves to control it's network and infrastructure at the expense of the developers who gave it value (

For anyone who has been following the furor over Twitter's moves to control it's network and infrastructure at the expense of the developers who gave it value (and it's logo!), Clever and LearnSprout should be concerning. The idea is that School's can integrate their SIS system with Clever's network once, and then have "seamless" integrations with whatever tools operate on that network. This is "free of charge" to the schools. However, the apps/tools that integrate with Clever must pay them. It should be noted that Clever's data and API aren't based on any existing or proposed industry standard. Schools are baited with the idea of a "free" integration. They'll end up paying for it in the long run, though, because those costs will be passed on for every application they use. What's worse, they'll all be locked into this proprietary standard. On the surface, this all sounds like a "Great Idea". At the end of the day, it's an attempt at a land grab to try and control the market for student data. Is that even a market that should exist in the first place? Are schools making the right long-term choice when they integrate with a tool such as Clever and LearnSprout, it if means being locked into a proprietary standard down the road? This sounds exactly like what has happened with the "centralized network" problem we have with Twitter, FB, etc.--and it is. Yes, the existing toolset in K12 is abysmal. Schools and their vendors should be looking to implement standards such as those offered by IMS in Higher Ed, rather than just adding another proprietary mouth in the trough--especially one that doesn't offer any actual learning tools. If Clever and LearnSprout issued their data formats under an open license through a standards body, I'd be way more interested. That said, I'm glad to see any kind of shake-up in the Ed space.

boboze 14y ago
You make a good point numbsafari, though I disagree with your suggestion that schools will end up paying in the long run. Fundamentally, this is true, but I would add that schools will be paying much less than what they are paying now. Integration with 3rd party apps is time consuming and expensive. If a "once and done" option is available, schools will benefit. The cost savings for developers is also very real. Instead of having to hire full-time integrators to manage each account with variants for each SIS, developers can plug into an API that works with all SISs once and be done. Finally, we should remember that having access to an API that is not regulated by SIS companies allows for the development of a new generation of edtech that until now, was not possible due to the fact that much of the data is purposely locked away in the SIS. Would Pearson really want parents using something like Edmodo in lieu of their own portal? In the attention economy, it's not in Pearson's interest to enable these types of solutions.
- numbsafari 14y ago
  Then why not publish your API specs and data formats under an open copyright license? You don't necessarily have to submit them to a standards body like ECMA or IMS. You can just publish them under an open license that is free to use by everyone involved. You'd still be able to provide your service and charge for it accordingly. Pearson already offers an open-standards based integration solutions. Yes, it's convoluted and difficult to implement. But it's out there and it's used by almost all of the real SIS providers. The idea that FTP and CSV are the only options available to schools is false. See http://sifinfo.org http://sifinfo.org for an example. All you are doing is changing which fox is in the hen house. It's a good game, business-wise, but is it really the right move for the K-12 providers and their customers?
  - rgarcia 14y ago
    Typical cost of a SIF integration is well out of the budget for all but the largest districts in the country. From what we've seen it typically takes 6+ months to do a full implementation (faster if you hire some consultants). Clever is free and takes 5 minutes. From that perspective it makes a lot of sense for schools. From the perspective of a software company, something like SIF adds needless additional costs. Want to plug into SIF? Get certified: http://www.sifinfo.org/us/sif-certification.asp http://www.sifinfo.org/us/sif-certification.asp. API docs? Support? Good luck finding that. The reality is that most of the standards you're talking about are free money for high-priced consultants.
    - numbsafari 14y ago
      Well, obviously... otherwise there wouldn't be a place in the market for the solution you are providing. Many of the SIS providers have failed to make these solutions easy to implement and they've allowed these standards to become overly complex. I've kinda said that in each of my posts. But that's besides the point. I'm not arguing that Clever and LearnSprout aren't adding some kind of value. Of course they are. But they are merely letting schools trade out one piece of vendor lock-in for another. And as we see play out in this industry, over and over again, is that vendor-lockin comes back to bite everyone involved. So, instead of changing the conversation, why not address my question: why not offer the specs for your API and data formats under a free and open copyright regime? Let the market decide what format is best and what providers are best, but let the data be free and open. With that, you'd even be beating SIF at their own game.

boboze 14y ago

You make a good point numbsafari, though I disagree with your suggestion that schools will end up paying in the long run. Fundamentally, this is true, but I would add that schools will be paying much less than what they are paying now. Integration with 3rd party apps is time consuming and expensive. If a "once and done" option is available, schools will benefit. The cost savings for developers is also very real. Instead of having to hire full-time integrators to manage each account with variants for each SIS, developers can plug into an API that works with all SISs once and be done. Finally, we should remember that having access to an API that is not regulated by SIS companies allows for the development of a new generation of edtech that until now, was not possible due to the fact that much of the data is purposely locked away in the SIS. Would Pearson really want parents using something like Edmodo in lieu of their own portal? In the attention economy, it's not in Pearson's interest to enable these types of solutions.

numbsafari 14y ago
Then why not publish your API specs and data formats under an open copyright license? You don't necessarily have to submit them to a standards body like ECMA or IMS. You can just publish them under an open license that is free to use by everyone involved. You'd still be able to provide your service and charge for it accordingly. Pearson already offers an open-standards based integration solutions. Yes, it's convoluted and difficult to implement. But it's out there and it's used by almost all of the real SIS providers. The idea that FTP and CSV are the only options available to schools is false. See http://sifinfo.org http://sifinfo.org for an example. All you are doing is changing which fox is in the hen house. It's a good game, business-wise, but is it really the right move for the K-12 providers and their customers?
- rgarcia 14y ago
  Typical cost of a SIF integration is well out of the budget for all but the largest districts in the country. From what we've seen it typically takes 6+ months to do a full implementation (faster if you hire some consultants). Clever is free and takes 5 minutes. From that perspective it makes a lot of sense for schools. From the perspective of a software company, something like SIF adds needless additional costs. Want to plug into SIF? Get certified: http://www.sifinfo.org/us/sif-certification.asp http://www.sifinfo.org/us/sif-certification.asp. API docs? Support? Good luck finding that. The reality is that most of the standards you're talking about are free money for high-priced consultants.
  - numbsafari 14y ago
    Well, obviously... otherwise there wouldn't be a place in the market for the solution you are providing. Many of the SIS providers have failed to make these solutions easy to implement and they've allowed these standards to become overly complex. I've kinda said that in each of my posts. But that's besides the point. I'm not arguing that Clever and LearnSprout aren't adding some kind of value. Of course they are. But they are merely letting schools trade out one piece of vendor lock-in for another. And as we see play out in this industry, over and over again, is that vendor-lockin comes back to bite everyone involved. So, instead of changing the conversation, why not address my question: why not offer the specs for your API and data formats under a free and open copyright regime? Let the market decide what format is best and what providers are best, but let the data be free and open. With that, you'd even be beating SIF at their own game.