The participatory nature of ICT is creating new issues of ownership of work in education.
Teaching has long had a ethos of sharing. Many teachers have been happy to share what
they have developed with colleagues. And
sometimes shared what wasn't really theirs, according to copyright law. Usually that sharing has been in the form of
photocopying.
Teachers developing their own material--particularly those
teaching online--are raising new issues.
Web sites now sell teacher-developed resources --take a look
at tpt (Teachers Pay Teachers) which
calls itself "an open marketplace for educators" and now accepts
school district purchase orders. User
ratings determine the rank of what is available. Other sharing sites like Pinterest are used
to advertise resources for sale online.
Who
owns copyright?
The general belief has been that when a teacher is employed
by a school board and develops an online resource it is the property of the
employer. When the teacher has been
doing this with a specific contract to develop a resource or a course, there is
no issue. The teacher is delivering what
they have agreed to explicitly.
However, not much of the development, at least in British
Columbia, is done on that explicit contract basis. The teacher may be developing or redeveloping
materials as a course goes on--is there an assumption that this material
belongs to the school district or the teacher?
And what if the teacher does it on their own time, they use their own computer at home and post
it on their own website?
As long as the teacher creates it and makes it available,
but does not use it in a course being offered as an employee, it clearly
belongs to the developer. But, some
claim, if the teacher uses it in a course they are employed to teach, it now
belongs to the employer, even if done entirely outside hours and on their own
equipment.
One BC school district, New Westminster, in its collective
agreement with teachers says it will give copyright to the teacher under an agreement
that meets two conditions--the board retains rights for non-profit uses and may
claim 10% of any royalties. (see the
wording in the references)
That agreement, though, seems to be unique among school
districts and for teachers in K-12 public schools. Teachers in post-secondary institutions often
have much broader claims to ownership than K-12 teachers.
Who
owns student work? Can we anticipate child
labour e- sweat shops?
Until recently, that would have been a silly question. But no more.
An article in the
Washington Post reports on "A proposal by the Prince George’s County Board
of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could
mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a
teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the
individual."
A school in Ohio
is offering a course for writing apps for children in grades one to six using a
program called "App Inventor" and the district is planning to capture
revenue, according to an article in a Cincinnati paper.
news.cincinnati.com/article/20130204/NEWS0102/302040049/IN-OUR-SCHOOLS-Local-school-launches-app-class?nclick_check=1
Julia
Hengstler, who brought these articles to my attention, raises the spectre of how this might develop: "How many schools running these
types of app-incubator programs are reserving the proceeds for the schools
without consideration for the kids who designed/drove them? Is this the
technological version of child labour sweat shops?"
A culture of sharing through Creative Commons
Teachers and
students being creative is a good thing.
Making everything into an "immaterial" market is not.
An
alternative is to ensure that places to share without payment exist and are
promoted. Developing a culture of
sharing can be done with Creative Commons licenses that rely on an ethic of working
collectively for educational purposes.
References:
1. New Westminster Collective Agreement, Article
D33 COPYRIGHT
D33.1 The ownership of and
copyright to educational materials such as: teaching aids, films, outlines,
notes, manuals, apparatus, which have been designed, written or constructed by
teachers with materials, with funds, and/or technical or clerical assistance
provided by the Board, is vested in the Board. If a teacher wishes, he/she may
discuss details with the Board and an agreement will be reached to give
copyrights to a teacher on the following conditions:
D33.1.1 that the Board retains
the right in perpetuity and without penalty to use these strategies/materials
and/or alter these strategies/materials for their use but not for the purpose
of profit; and
D33.1.2 the Board may require that 10% of all royalties paid
to, for or on behalf of the author, following such release of copyright by the
Board to him/her, be repaid, retained or paid to the Board to defray the Board‟s
costs of their development.
2. www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/prince-georges-considers-copyright-policy-that-takes-ownership-of-students-work/2013/02/02/dc592dea-6b08-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story_1.html
3. news.cincinnati.com/article/20130204/NEWS0102/302040049/IN-OUR-SCHOOLS-Local-school-launches-app-class?nclick_check=1
4. Teachers Pay Teachers (tpt): http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/
4. Teachers Pay Teachers (tpt): http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Larry.
ReplyDeleteI think that these type of social justice issues need to be fully considered as we move farther down the path of a knowledge-based, technologically endowed society. Technology provides many affordances for learning and teaching. We need to mitigate issues that arise from the use of technology and prevent others that we anticipate arising. Technology should be a medium for fair and just treatment of all participants.