Mixed Feelings About Giving It Away

In my last post I shared some resources for an experiential poetry lesson I've been developing and implementing in my classroom for years.  This was actually the first time I've posted my own resources for others to download.  As much as I love the idea of open source curriculum and educational tools, I do harbor some mixed feelings about giving away my tools. 

On the one hand, if something that I know could benefit other teachers and their students, the altruistic part of me wants to help.  But there's another voice that says, "This knowledge is worth a lot and I worked very hard to acquire it.  I also paid for top notch training at Bank Street College, an investment in my ability to teach that was well worth it, but that came with hefty loans I still pay off every month.  And I don't really get paid enough for what I currently do to feel like I can just give away what I've got." 

It's a tricky thing, and I know many will disagree with me.  I know a musician who plays and produces music.  He does it because he loves it.  He loves the feeling of making music, the process of recording it well, and seeing people enjoying his music.  But this doesn't mean he does it for free.  If he works for years creating and perfecting an album, he will intend to sell that album. Sure, he'll give a few songs away for free, but there's a limit to that for two reasons.  1. Music is his means of making a living. Therefore, he cannot give his music away for free all the time.  2. Even if he could, on principle, the demanding, skilled work put into making the music is worth something in the world and should be in the marketplace as well.  Perhaps money is not the most creative way to value something as beautiful as music, but it's a very *real* way to value it.  If he gives his music away for free, this will cause him to cease to be a full time professional musician.  He will have no choice but to get a different job and continue music only as a hobby--less music for everything then. 

As a teacher, I do make a salary of course, but compared to the level of skill, stamina, brains and training necessary to pull it off well, the teacher's salary just doesn't compare to other professions.  So, while I'd like to feel that I would just hand a stranger everything I know in a handbag if I could, the truth is I most likely would not. I have already started the process of supplementing my teacher's salary by writing, consulting, giving workshops on curriculum and other teaching matters.  I wouldn't do these things if I didn't enjoy them, but by the same token, I would probably do a lot less outside work if I made a six figure salary. 

So is my perceived need to hold on and use my teaching knowledge and experience in the marketplace just a work-around in response to an inadequate salary scale?  Would it be better if I became a master teacher and made $150,000 a year and shared everything I could for free?  Or is there something about being both a teacher and a free agent--a social entrepreneur of sorts, with the ability to apply my unique set of skills and competencies to contexts that need them for a fair price--that might be valuable?  In the model of the well-paid master teacher, what is the vehicle for the sharing of expertise?  

I'm honestly kind of on the fence about which model would be better, but I'm attracted to the idea of having more freedom and variation within the teaching profession, in terms of roles, schedules and compensation.

I believe these questions are at the heart of the debate about teacherprenuerism.  Here is Barnett Berry's Edweek article introducing the idea.  Here is my presentation about teacherpreneurship at the Big Ideas Fest.  Here, is fellow TLN'er, Nancy Flanagan's critique of the teacherpreneur concept. 

Thoughts?

 

[Image credit:selfpursuit.com]

 

 

 

Comments

[pandora UK]

Or is there something about being both a teacher and a free agent--a social entrepreneur of sorts

[Nancy Flanagan]

Of course, you should be paid for your original ideas, writing, tools and materials. Even if you were making a six-figure salary, your intellectual property is valuable. The fact is, teachers who consult, write and take part in grant-paid projects are almost always paid a very modest stipend, far below market value of what their unique skills, talents and experience-honed ideas are actually worth.

Ever notice what the openly entrepreneurial Teach for America is now selling? It's no longer about filling openings that no regular teacher wants. TFA's program has been re-purposed as "leadership" training. So what if teachers only work in poor schools for two years--they're developing their leadership skills, and will leverage them to solve our greatest ed-problems in the future. Using the attractive "market place of social entrepreneurism." You pay your dues for two years, then go on to your real life as "leader" and "reformer." And you make more money.

There something morally wrong with using what should be a human right in an equitable democracy --a free, high-quality public education for every child-- as a platform for personal attention and gain. That doesn't mean teachers should give away the things and ideas they have created. Only that excellent teaching, by definition, includes a generosity of effort and persistence. You can't be a superb teacher without being a diligent and collaborative servant. If you're holding back your best skills and ideas because your wages are lousy, there's a disconnect between the moral purpose of education and the market place.

There probably is a potential for solving that--a model of paying teachers a professional salary with the implicit understanding that innovations created in the workplace belong to the commons. But that runs counter to the Invisible Hand premise of developing "teacherpreneurs." The entrepreneurial model posits risk acceptance as a lever toward personal or corporate gain. Great, if you're selling luxuries--or credentials. If we truly believe that education is a human right, however, teachers cannot be entrepreneurs before they become fully professional leaders.

For a look at what happens when we give exclusive access to goods that could save lives, look at Big Pharma. Who has access to life-saving drugs?

[KV]

So much of what I do I learned from others, who gave it to me for free. Many of my best ideas build so much on things I borrowed and tweaked that I'm not sure I even know where my work began and the contributions of others end.

I have noticed a lot of plagiarism of lesson plans on the internet, some of it blatant, word-for-word, and some of it clearly just taking a good idea and adapting it for a slightly different audience, taking it farther, etc. To me it feels like some of the same intellectual property issues that relate to recipes apply here... The dozens of small variations on a science lesson on pendulums remind me of the dozens of recipes I find if I search for chocolate cake or cherry pie.

That said, a highly original unit that you worked on extensively over years is clearly more "yours" than the lessons I just described. I can understand the feeling, as we get deeper into our careers, of wanting to seek opportunities for recognition and copyright and compensation for the things we've created, and I'm sure when the possibility of turning it into a book is weighed against the possibility of giving it away for free, it gets tough.

[Bill Ferriter]

Hey Pal,

Great post.

Here's a few pushback thoughts from a guy who has been giving away content for the better part of the past 5 years:

(1). When you post content freely for other people, you create opportunities to get feedback from other practitioners that you would never have gotten feedback from before.

For me, that feedback is almost as valuable as the original content that I created.

When I share stuff, I almost always get immediate reactions from people--either on my blog or in Twitter. Those reactions help me to continue to polish my work and improve on my first bits.

(2). When you know that you're writing for an audience, you tend to put more effort into your final products to begin with.

For me, that improves the overall quality of my work.

Now, I know that the primary audience for your poetry lessons was your students, but if you're trying to work as a writer and a consultant, a secondary audience is publishers and district leaders who might hire you.

Responding to the reality that those publishers and potential employers might see your work online may result in you creating a far more polished product than you would have if you were only publishing for yourself.

That has value too.

(3). Finally, one of the only ways that I've found to even crack into the writing/consulting world as a full-time classroom teacher has been to give content away.

The fact of the matter is that to people who pay for consultants and who hire writers, full-time classroom teachers are a dime-a-dozen.

There's no need to hire you because in their minds, you aren't anything special.

So sharing content---and more importantly, building a tangible, loyal, and measurable audience---gets you into the game.

I've written now for NSDC, ASCD, and Solution Tree. I consult---at $2,000 a day----about 10-15 days a year. I've got 3,500 followers on Twitter and 2,200 followers on my blog.

And every one of those people believes in me because of the content that I create and give away freely.

Any of this make sense?

Essentially, I see my relationship with my readers as symbiotic.

I help them by sharing my content freely, but they help me just as much by serving as an intellectual sounding board and by giving me credibility that classroom teachers don't often have.

Fun conversation!
Bill

PS: A third argument that I've heard developing in education circles is even a bit scarier:

Some districts believe that any content you create to use with your kids belongs to THEM because you created it while under contract with THEM.

If the pendulum swings in that direction, THEY would be able to sell YOUR content.

Stew in that for awhile.

[Ariel Sacks]

Bill, Thank you for this response and for sharing your own experience and wisdom on this issue. What I pretty much hear is that in fact giving away your curriculum and selling it are not mutually exclusive but actually go hand in hand feeding one another in multiple ways that you described. It is really inspiring what you've accomplished as a fulltime classroom teacher.

Actually a similar symbiosis has been happening in indie music lately. Bands give away songs, videos and EPs for free as they build relationships and community with their listeners whose responses to the music are extremely important. Eventually the hope is that enough folks will
decide it worthwhile to buy the album when it comes out
and pay admission to shows.

KV, your comparison to recipes is well-taken. I am thinking more and more that the value in the resources created as well as the philosophy and reasoning behind them and the approach to implementing them in the classroom. Each of those things combined in a different way for individual teachers. The materials could be the same but the effect be different depending on the teacher. Or the effect could be very similar using different materials from two different teachers with similar approaches and ideas. In this way, part of what becomes valuable is the dialogue itself and the time and to some degree skill it takes to share teaching ideas articulately with others. I read Bill's blog partly for resources he shares, but even more for the way he shares his thinking about his work. I imagine the ability to articulate this clearly is what makes him someone schools want to hire as a consultant.

Thanks for an interesting conversation. Still thinking.

Nancy, thank you for you comment and challenge. I am thinking it over and will respond soon. I am with you on almost everything you have said. Except I'm not sure I have the same definition of entrepreneur as you using. I'm looking into it.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Here's a clip from Chatauqua where Jonathon Schnur (founder of New Leaders for New Schools) is described as a social entrepreneur.

I believe this is the way the world is using the term. I do understand the desire to move teachers into positions where they control their own work, releasing their creative agency. That's what I want, too. But "entrepreneur" is understood differently.

http://queensteacher2.blogspot.com/2011/07/linda-darling-hammond-on-state-of.html?spref=tw

[logo design]

I am already convinced that a collaborative approach is the hallmark of a great classroom, now I see how twitter can add in professional development. Call me a recent convert and thanks for the hashtag listing.