Top Public School Signs Multi-Million Dollar Deal To Copyright & Sell Its Curriculum
from the progress? dept
If you go back to the original intent of copyright law, it was to improve learning and knowledge. "Promoting the progress of science" really mean "knowledge" at the time it was written. But, these days, we've lost pretty much all touch with that original intention. Last year, we noted that there was a growing battle over whether or not teachers could sell their lesson plans, with some districts claiming copyright over all teacher curricula and lesson plans to make sure that only they could determine how those plans were used. Of course, in the past (and, for many, the present) teachers often freely shared curricula and lesson plans with each other, in an effort to spread the knowledge and help each other out.But throw in a bit of copyright, and a chance to "profit" -- even for a public school -- and apparently the whole concept of sharing gets tossed out the window. Kevin Donovan alerts us to the news that publishing giant Pearson has signed a multi-million dollar deal with a public school district. Basically, Pearson is giving the Montgomery County Public Schools $2.25 million for the right to their curricula, which it will sell. The schools will also get a 3% royalty. Pearson can change the curricula if it wants, so it might not even be what the teachers there put together, but they're apparently trying to build up a big brand around this school district, which tends to do well in various metrics.
Of course, some people are quite uncomfortable with this. Now the teachers won't be able to share the curriculum they themselves develop. And that could come back to haunt them. Will teachers at other schools be willing to share their own curricula with schools that are locking down and selling their own? One of the dissenting school board members (only two were against the deal) is reasonably worried that deals like this may turn teachers into sales people, rather than teachers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, curriculum, education, lesson plans, public schools
Companies: montgomery county public schools, pearson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probablt won't do much for teacher motivation though. Plus - who says that the version of the lesson plan that the teacher releases to the school is necessarily the whole story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it's all about the creators, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Jesus Christ.
The only way this works is if many curriculum defficient schools are buying these supposed superior cirricula from a few. So how do the majority of schools spending money on curriculum leave them MORE money to pay better/more teachers?
Holy fucking logic fail, Batman....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a benefit to this system. I am not saying that there are not problems here or even that the benefits surely outweigh the issues that WILL be caused. I am only saying that only looking at the one side of the situation is a bit disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is some very naive thinking right there. If the money goes to salary increases for anyone, then most of the increases will be seen in the salaries of the administrators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good teacher w/ bad curriculum is better than a bad teacher w/ good curriculum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, private schools actually perform in the way you seem to be thinking. Furthermore, it's examples like these that make me continually question how people can think "greedy" corporations are all about the profit, but politicians and public employees are apparently all about serving the public out of the goodness of their heart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. How do you instill uniform learning standards on an at best loose network of private schools? This is important, because every child in this country has a right to an education. To have a high variance in private schools with regard to learning material and curriculum would create a problem in creating proficiency in certain areas that are of national importance.
2. Who owns the schools?
Religion? Eh, a problem, but not that huge of one, so long as they aren't slapping the kids around with rulers and making half the classes religious studies. The only real problem I can see is the area of the applied sciences. There are some religions that seem to prefer mysticism over proper scientific method, which is fine for faith but bad for education.
Businesses? Fuck no. I mean, just hell no. We have enough commercial indoctrination of our youths through advertisements in this country, I'm not putting BP or Microsoft in charge of children's education (particularly with the dismal failure of Bill Gate's own private school turnarounds...)
And really, who else is there? Wealthy philanthropists? We're back to business influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2. Anybody that wants to open a school and can convince parents to send their children there. Nobody, least of all government, is going to be more careful with children's futures than their own parents (with exceptions, of course, that are nevertheless much smaller in number than any other system). Some of them may very well be biased in some manner or another(take religious institutions), but if that's the desire of their parents then who are we to tell them how they can or can't raise their kids?
There already exist private schools and they perform much better than public schools even accounting for funding differences. It's just a matter of removing public schools' monopolistic advantages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: smoke up the ass
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Bastardization
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what happens when one of the teachers decides to tweak the program data that is now copyrighted to pearson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question...
sounds a lot like the purpose for sending children through school.
Can someone explain how locking down lesson plans will promote learning for kids?
This might be a strech but isn't this teetering on the edge of trying to copyright facts?
Maybe this is being done under the notion of copyrighting the teachers' method of teaching I guess?
Does this mean that if a teacher's plans end up under Pearson's copyright then moves to another district said teachers can no longer use those plans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My only question is....
It was only a matter of time until schools, who suffer budget cuts after budget cuts (some needed some not so) that they start whoring out thier teachers for money. Honestly, its not the Schools desion. Its a PUBLIC school meaning that information gathered there is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Thats like the IRS selling their databases to creditcard companies and bill collectors so they know how much you makes to better spam you with offers.
I was in education for a short stint. most teachers are hard working and relyed on the onformation sharing to get ideas for their classes. This will eventually break down and we will just be going back to the stone age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government held copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd argue that there is very little sharing between teachers in different school districts, let alone in different states. Getting a publisher involved gives the content in question a much wider audience, the content will now have further reach. That extended reach absolutely promotes knowledge. At what point in history did anyone say that promotion of knowldege should be free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and to add...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid
I'm glad the teachers themselves are nervous about this - they should be. The teachers, all their teacher friends, and all the students are exactly the ones not benefiting from this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking the public out of a public school
The curriculum that will be sold will NOT be written by classroom teachers. A new department has been set up in the school system and new administrators have been hired to write the curriculum that will be sold to the vendor.
4 administrators were hired minutes after the Board voted to approve the vendor contract. What is being sold is our school system's curriculum writers product. You can learn more at this link:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/06/weast-hires-staff-to-work-for-pearson.html
Also, I would note that Montgomery County Public Schools is a $2.1 BILLION dollar a year system.
$2.25 million would not even pay for two artificial turf football fields. Hardly a dent in our enormous school system with over 200 schools and 140,000 students.
As this was not a procurement that was put out for a bid we don't know what other vendors may have offered for this deal.
You can watch the video of what one of the dissenting Board of Education members said here:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/06/berthiaume-on-untenable-conflict.html
But understand that she and all the other Board members, along with the public had only heard about this deal the night before so these were just her first impressions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like this statement in the Memo from the Superintendent.
"In accordance with the Agreement, Pearson will contribute up to $4,500,000 and its expertise in assessments, professional development, and publishing. One-half of these development funds will be considered an advance against future royalties."
This sounds a lot like the Record Labels agreement. So, until $2,500,000 is paid back, the school district won't get another dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHA
NOW criminals can use the excuse
BUT the education was copyrighted and i dun know how to pays for it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a bunch of uneducated fools
Unions have no affect on the educational system whatsoever, except apparently states which tend to unionize teachers have higher ACT scores.
http://www.mibazaar.com/education/actscores.html
Select Composite scores for test results.
Another example showing yet again Unionized schools perform better
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/school-district/ratings/top100/
And the worst
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/school-district/ratings/worst100/
You'll notice Chicago is on the worst list multiple times and that is due to a HUGE financial crunch, which I recommend everyone read into. If all schools were required to purchase these curriculum, as the federal government likes to overstep and mandate things like standardized testing etc, imagine the financial crises of these schools.
This is only meant to show one thing, Unions do not ruin schools in union states. I am actually in a union state and tend to dislike them , but they can't be held accountable for test scores, it's money coming in, that's why Texas also has good schools in many areas despite the fact that they have just added religion to curriculum.
Privatizing public facts is a bad thing. Look at what Monsanto has done to farmers who want to use their own seed. They come in and since there has been some cross contamination you must now pay them for your seed forever...where does the privatization of the public end? When does copyright get back to what it was meant to do in protecting the consumer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...
Why dont you make the full statement that is the definition of copyright law?
Is it because it does not gell with the line you are trying to push.
You, above all here should not about accuracy and completness, if you expect people to take your word as worth anything.
Ok, here is the full and complete statement, that Mike tends to omit.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Importantly, the part you omit is the most important aspect of copyright law.
"BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND DISCOVERIES."
So that is what copyright law is about, its not "JUST" about promoting knowledge, but its a complete statement that Mike tends to truncate for his own benifit.
_______________
As for this example, this is an example of copyright law working, how is it better if this school kept their information proprietary, and not making it available to anyone who sees value in it.
How is that better, keeping it proprietary and closed as opposed to making it open and available for others?
Sure, you have to pay for it, but thats ok, because you dont HAVE to pay for it, if you dont want too you can choose to use your own.
And that is stopping others from making their work copyrighted and available for others to purchase and use.
Is this not better and more open and promoting knowledge than keeping that information proprietary and closed ?
To me, and most others (ie everyone but only 2 people who disagreed), this is a shining example of copyright law WORKING as intended.
But you manage to twist it around to something bad, because clearly that is the angle you wish to push.
No such thing as balanced reporting, or factual reporting here.
So next time, when defining copyright, include the full definition of copyright, not just the part you agree with, and not the part you disagree with.
""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.""
"To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."
Mike: " One of the dissenting school board members (only two were against the deal) is reasonably worried that deals like this may turn teachers into sales people, rather than teachers."
Ok only two dissenters, from the board of I assume Many.
And I not you dont agree that teachers should turn into sales people, but at the same time you expect musicians to turn into sales, production, promotion, distribution and not be musicians.
So why is it ok to retask movie makers, or musicians but stick up for teachers ?
Every has the right to do the work they choose, teachers dont want to be sales people, just as musicians dont want to be sales people, or producers, mixers, sound engineers and so on.
And all those people who do choose to be producers, sales people and so on might have something to say about your model putting them out of a job.
But you dont address any downsides, and you dont show what or how the upsides of your scheme is achieved.
Just strawman arguments, about how somehow the system now does not work, and your new system somehow will work as long as those involved are willing to give up the work they choose and do other work that they have chosen not to do.
**************
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[3]
""To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."[4]"
so in future make sure you include the complete definition.
"WHILE RETURNING TO CREATORS SO THAT THEY CAN LEAD A DIGNIFIED ECONOMIC EXISTENCE, AND TO PROVIDE WIDESPREAD, AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO CONTENT FOR PUBLIC"
So when you can show how no copyright protection, and illegal file sharing can provide a dignified economic existence. AS WELL AS, providing widespread, affordable access to content for the public.
So what is wrong with that ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...
The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...
"Promoting the progress of science" really mean "knowledge" at the time it was written. But, these days, we've [+++ at techdirt ++] lost pretty much all touch with that original intention."----
--------------------------
IN touch with that original intention,,, IS any one who has gone to LAW SCHOOL or , sits in Congress ,, or sits on SCOTUS, or is a Beatle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."
---
Mike do NOT Ever go into Politics , the Media , would never let you esacape with a point like that.
Full Quote = Honesty
Half Quote = Agenda
-----------------
You Mike , are a habitual Half-Quoter.
---------------------------
Your readers are smarter , than you.
Except the Pirate Clone Army you have here following you.
That .00001% of the USA pop , that want , kill, cut , and destroy , and abolish copyright for Artists , Writers , and etc ., et al ,
All come here, to read you Mike .
Where else can they go to read such drivel , that ignores law and history?.
--------------------------
Like i say Mike ,, Patent Law , is sick , and needs healing,
------------------------
You have taken your justifiable , and mainstream dissatisfaction with Patent Law in it current bastard form
,, and decided to go after copyright too,, which has been pretty in law and principle stable for 200 years.
--------------------------------
Patents are for big biz corp slime, suing other big biz corp slime.
---------------
Copyright protects the George's Beatles music , from being in every commercial broadcast everywhere. w/o paying the Harrison Estate , which still own George' songs.
I for one am glad copyright means i do not have to hear commercials like ,,
"Here comes , the sun" - Tan -- tan -- , every one ...
Or
"Why My New Car never weeps"
---------------------------------------
copy. right now , copyright forever,,, and stronger.
-------------
But yes, Patent , is a sick puppy , because of huge corp $$$ at stake , greedy lawyers & lobbyists .
---------------------------------
Stick with Patents Mike. you got a good cause there.
-------------------------
but on copyright , it is displaced hostilities from you towards Artist and Writers , See a shrink to work it out..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The clause I quoted is the "why". The clause you're talking about is the "how." I'm not ignoring it. I'm posting the *relevant* portion when discussing the "why."
half quotes and half answers,, that is your Pirate Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...
Look at his Squirming Answer here below :
( your ball Daryl , i got you covered)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full definition of copyright please - not your incomplete version...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflict of interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Independent Resources Will Save Thousands of Dollars.
"Teachers all over the United States are seeking new and better ways to meet the needs of all of their students..."--Curriculum Associates
Please contact us if you want to be added to our list of service providers or if you want a guest user id and password to view curriculum. We can provide you with free consultation on how we can become an added service or a ways we can help you save money and extend the scope of services you can provide. We appreciate all that you are doing for our community. www.educationanywhere.com or www.edanywhere.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]