[dash2]

The short version:

* Education is socialized. That is, people don't pay for it, instead the state buys it. At university level, this is slightly less true but the state still provides loans which may never be paid back. Even for the rich, who buy their own education, the sector is still extremely inefficient since the main value added is not from the teachers but from the other students. That is, universities are fundamentally clubs (in the economic sense of the term) rather than businesses.

* As a result, there is no payoff for innovating.

* As a result, there is no innovation worth mentioning. This applies to software, teaching, course design and everything else.

* At some point the existing system may become so bad that individual consumers seek alternatives. Then, there may be money to be made in teaching people. Until then, you are condemning yourself to a precarious existence. Good luck!

[cycomanic]

I find statements like this incredibly arrogant. As if education could be revolutionised by some webapp.

Moreover it's also provably false. Education is big business in most countries and a significant portion of gdp (and often not "socialise" either, universities, private schools, private certificate/education providers etc.). Despite of that nobody managed to "disrupt" education yet, because education is difficult and most "small, agile" providers in this space are awful, mainly preying on the desperate.

Regarding good lms, to the OP it really depends on what you want. Systems like Canvas, Moodle are catering for universities/school. The requirements for such large organisations might be very different. Why do you find canvas/Moodle bad for example?

[dash2]

What's arrogant is assuming that we are educating our kids as best as we can already. For anyone working in the sector, that's not just arrogant, it's absurd.

Most developed countries have state-run primary and secondary education systems, and most of them also have highly or entirely state-funded tertiary education. This is a statement of the obvious, I think. I also mentioned reasons why private providers often had little incentive to innovate.

I haven't experienced Canvas or Moodle, but I've experienced Blackboard. Blackboard is beyond dire. See my other comment and the notorious review it links.

[cycomanic]

I never said that we already are educating our kids as best as we can, so that's a strawman. I actually agree that there's still a lot we don't know about learning. However, I don't believe we we will see a revolution of how we learn, and that revolution will certainly not come from businesses or startups. It requires way too much long term investment with uncertain outcomes.

Regarding LMS, so you know one proprietary system (which is admitably aweful) and based on that you make general judgements of the two open source alternatives?

[dash2]

Right, we agree that (a) there's not enough innovation in education and (b) under the current structures, business won't provide it. The only thing I add is a specific explanation for (b): state control, and sluggish private organizations at the top, provide little incentive to innovate.

The OP suggested that LMS were not good. I provided a reason why that might be so, which fits my experience. I can confirm that the one LMS I know is terrible.

[KaiserPro]

> As a result, there is no payoff for innovating

I mean thats not true. It means there are different pressures for innovating.

Buying a system in that will reduce the number of staff hours needed to do admin by 5% clear sale.

Buying in staff who cost 3-5x what a normal admin would cost, for a open ended, unsupported software project that has a high chance of failure? not a clear sale.

Schools are not tech companies, they do not have the capacity to spin up a software stack. They want software they can buy, and buy support at the same time.

[dash2]

Buying a system in for marginal gains isn't innovation. I think you agree with my substantive point.