Presumably you mean develop syllabi and curricula under liberal, permissive Creative Commons licences and/or in the public domain. This is a good step towards releasing educational organisations from the dominance and control of the big publishers, e.g. Pearson and McGraw Hill, and yes they have captured a lot of K-12 education and manipulated it to their own benefit regardless of learners' needs, but it doesn't address education policy itself.
Publishers are only part of a bigger system with vested interests pulling in multiple directions simultaneously and with the people that really understand how learning and education actually work being marginalised by political considerations. A lot of this is coming from the private sector, especially the IT sector, which wants a slice of the lucrative pie, and their attempts to privatise parts of the system to give them a stronger foothold, free from regulation and from annoying details like learning gains and effect sizes, dropout rates, etc.
MOOCs are a case in point. The IT sector is driving this, with the help of a few universities that welcome the corporate money, but AFAIK, nobody researching MOOCs' with pre-, post-, and delayed-post tests or, more importantly, doing long term studies. All they're doing is gathering web metrics which may be fine for selling advertising to corporate sponsors but are utterly useless at measuring learning (whatever they may tell you on flashy TED Talks presentations).
Bottom line: computers and computer mediated assessment are stupid, teachers are smart. Invest in teachers if you want smart learners.