# data[].attributes.body
Question #1: The issue of what the teacher spends the money on is, frankly, a red herring. It is no one else’s business what an individual does with their income, in the same way it’s no one else’s business what an individual does with their regular paycheck. The issue is really whether a creator of IP should benefit financially from content without ownership over the content.

Question #2: In no way does it cheapen the profession. I would buy the very best resources to support my teaching style and the learning styles of my students as part of my capital budget. Who has produced the best content is irrelevant – if it’s another teacher, fantastic! If it’s a corporation selling training equipment, no problem. This is like asking if I would weigh the best candidate for a job differently from another based on irrelevant criteria.

Question #3: I may have already answered this. I think having repositories of fee based material is fantastic. The moment free enterprise comes into play, there’s an inherent competition for the best ‘product’, because the best product will likely sell the most units, which is really one of the main reasons someone would post materials here. Due to the inherent competitiveness, there would likely be a concentrated effort to build better material, which can only benefit a teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
#1
I feel the following statement by Jones (2016) sums up my viewpoint, “If selling lesson plans represent a copyright violation, then the use of proceeds shouldn’t matter – illegal is illegal.  However, neither should it matter if lesson plans are the intellectual property of the teachers because the proceeds, like the lesson plans, belong to the teacher to do with as he or she pleases” (p. 1).

#2
I do not think selling lessons and other classroom materials online is cheapening the teaching profession.  On the contrary, I feel that putting a monetary value on information only adds to its value. With this said, I would like to add that, in today's digital age, it is harder and harder to control intellectual property once it is out there.  In my case, if I know that the right information is out there that can have a significant impact on my life, I have no ethical problems/dilemmas paying for it knowing that someone else worked hard to compile/edit it to be ready for my consumption.

#3
Teaching sites such as ‘We Are Teachers’ and “Teachers Pay Teachers” are very beneficial to teachers because they do not have to 'reinvent the wheel' and it saves them a great deal of time on lesson preparation.  Also, teachers can teach much better with a well-organized teaching plan that has been 'tried' and 'testing'.  However, I do agree with some other remarks on this page in that teachers do have to be careful about what they are paying for because they might not always be aware of IP infringement issues, which could land them in some hot water!

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1
I do not think that teachers should put the money they earn from developing material and selling it back into the school but it depends on the situation, its easy: if you use class time to generate the document you are selling then yes give it back to the school. its deemed "double dipping", to get paid from the institution and get paid from the private company when you are using their time. if you generate your documents on your own time then yes use it for yourself.

Question 2:
you are not :cheapening" the profession by selling your material. this is an administration defense. institutions that feel they should be acknowledged or compensated by the teacher would say this. they feel they should have thought of the idea and received compensation to. administrators should think of how the selling of documents promotes their institutions and utilize the selling to increase the marketing of their institution.

Question 3:

teachers who buy from the "market place" need to be cautious. the document they are buying may infringe on the copy right law and on plagiarism. hence it s a great idea to pay for lesson plans, activities etc, but if the person generating the document did not give credit you can get yourself into some legal trouble.

# data[].attributes.body
Hu, W. (2009, November 14). Selling lessons online raises cash and controversy. New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1:
My answer is, it depends.  It really depends on the contract the teacher has signed and the policy in place at that institution.  If there is nothing written in the policy or contract, then they should be able to sell whatever they want and spend the profit how they see fit.
My question would be, are these people paying taxes on the sale of their lesson plans, etc.?  If they are generating revenue (and as the article states, some are making upwards of $30,000 in sales), then essentially they are running a business and there are laws around that.  So, would it be any different than selling stuff on Kijiji?  This is another debate question...

Question 2:
I do not believe that it is cheapening the teaching profession.  Millions of dollars every year go to buying and selling products on line.  As noted expressed by Lauren Perreca (in Hu, 2009), she was able to use the lesson plans she created to fill in her own knowledge gaps and is now selling lesson plans of her own.  If anything, it is helping teachers to be more diverse in their teaching by using ideas of other teachers who have great ideas or more experience in different topics.

Question 3:
I think I answered that in question 2 a bit...sorry.  Knowledge sharing is great and providing that option through the internet, allows people from countries around the world to share ideas, cultures, traditions that may not otherwise been shared.

Hu, W.  (2009).  Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1:
How teachers spend the money they make on the lessons they sell is irrelevant.
In a perfect world, all of the money they receive from their sales would go back into the classroom (and I bet the schools may change their tune if this was required), but ultimately the teachers are able to spend their money how they see fit. Would it be just as much of a problem if they were investing it into GIC's or RRSP'S?
Jones (2010) goes to say that if selling lesson plans is going to be looked at as copyright infringement, then the money does not matter-illegal is illegal.

Question 2:

I do not believe that the selling of lesson plans is cheapening the profession. The collaboration among colleagues, and the sharing of information to produce better lessons is done for the greater good of the student population. Hu (2009) references that principals believed it was beneficial because the students reaped benefits of creativity.

Question 3:

I feel that the "knowledge marketplace" websites are beneficial to teachers. I think it is a place where they can share information freely with one another and experiment with what is working in the classroom and what is not. as stated in Hu (2009), there are some teachers that find comfort in using lesson plans that have been developed and used by experienced teachers.

I may sound like a broken record here, but I feel that the idea is for the students to reap the rewards here. I think that if there is a better way of teaching, a better hand out, a more effective assignment, then why not use these things for the student benefit.
I also strongly believe that the ultimate issue is the institution bottom line, and the money involved precipitates the question of ownership. As Jones (2009) states, teachers have presumed the developed material is their own, and schools have never questioned it until now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers who sell their lesson plans online might be running afoul of copyright laws.

No one becomes a teacher for the money. You're in the classroom because the rewards of being a teacher still compensate (on most days at least) for the low pay and long, grueling hours. Teaching after all is a public service, not a business. But are teaching and entrepreneurship mutually exclusive?

Some educators are testing these boundaries. As reported recently by the New York Times, Web sites such as TeachersPayTeachers and We Are Teachers provide an online marketplace for teachers to sell original classroom materials, namely lesson plans, to other teachers.

Some critics are aghast at the idea, citing ethical pitfalls and implying that such a practice somehow cheapens the profession. Not so, say proponents, who believe it promotes excellent teaching and empowerment. (The extra cash doesn't hurt, either, as at least one New York teacher who claims up to $36,000 in sales found out.)

Anyway, if everybody sells everything on the Web, the thinking goes, then why can't teachers peddle their lesson plans - original content created on their own time - over the Internet?

Maybe because there is a good chance that you don't actually own the copyright to the classroom materials you produce.

Intellectual Property: It's Complicated

"This is a legal issue," says Cynthia Chmielewski of NEA's Office of General Counsel. "So if you want to sell your lesson plans online, make sure you actually own them."

As far as Carol Sanders is concerned, she does.

"This is America," says Sanders, a veteran English teacher in Brooten, Minnesota. "My district does not own me. And I own what I create for the classroom."

Right on the first two counts, but does Sanders also "own" the teaching materials she produces?

The short answer is . . . it depends.

If your employment contract assigns copyright ownership of materials produced for the classroom to the teacher, then you probably have a green light. Absent any written agreement, however, the Copyright Act of 1976 stipulates that materials created by teachers in the scope of their employment are deemed "works for hire" and therefore the school owns them.

Sanders and many of her colleagues, however, believe that if they create materials on their own time, using their own equipment, they surely have the right to do with them as they please.

"Under the law," explains Chmielewski, "this may not make a difference. The issue is whether you created the materials as part of your job duties."

In 2004, a federal appellate court in New York ruled that "tests, quizzes, homework problems, and other teaching materials" were works made for hire owned by the district and that the "academic tradition" of granting authors ownership of their own scholarly work cannot be applied to materials not explicitly intended for publication.

And don't think districts won't swoop in and exercise their rights. The New York Times article cites at least one incident in upstate New York where a school district banned a teacher from selling her work. Other districts may demand a cut of -- if not all -- the profits.

NEA believes that staff should own the copyright to the materials they create for use in the classroom and supports amending the Copyright Act of 1976 to recognize a "teachers exemption" to the "works made for hire" doctrine.

In the meantime, Chmielewski says educators should work with local affiliates to bargain copyright protections into collective bargaining agreements. And in non-bargaining states, affiliates should pressure school employers to develop more equitable intellectual property policies.

"Outdated Thinking"

Joe Fatheree, a high school teacher in Effingham, Illinois, wonders why a district, even if it is legally entitled, would want to strip incentives from its staff. The 2007 Illinois Teacher of the Year, Fatheree believes schools are being shortsighted if they are not encouraging educators to publish, whether they get paid for it or not.
What Do You Think?
Should educators sell their lesson plans online? Should you have legal copyright over the material you create for the classroom? Join the discussion.

"We should all be looking for ways to elevate the profession," Fatheree says. "Teachers who publish online are well-respected and are providing excellent content."

Esther Wojcicki, however, has reservations. A journalism teacher in Palo Alto, California, Wojcicki supports teachers who want to sell their lesson plans ("more power to them," she says) but is nonetheless concerned about the proverbial slippery slope - rampant plagiarism, shoddy material flooding the Web, and, perhaps most importantly, a challenge to what she calls the "culture of sharing" that reinforces the teaching profession.

Wojcicki wonders if teachers, encouraged by new profits, will stop sharing their expertise and resources with their own colleagues. Wojcicki directs one of the largest journalism programs in the country and is passionate about educators using technology to share resources and collaborate. She is currently working on a Web site where teachers will be able to access her journalism curriculum, free-of-charge.

The Web is a goldmine of free resources-many of them first-rate-so it's natural to ask, as Wojcicki does, why would a teacher need to purchase another's lesson plan?

"I don't know any teachers who sell or buy classroom materials online," Wojcicki says, "so I don't think it's widespread. But, ultimately, the reality is that educators share with one another and should continue to do so."

Joe Fatheree and Carol Sanders believe both worlds can coexist. What they oppose is the faulty notion that what these educators are doing somehow cheapens the profession, when, they believe, it does quite the opposite.

"It's the 21st century," says Fatheree. "Districts looking to dampen this activity are being led by some pretty old-fashioned thinking and we don't have to take a vow of poverty to be great teachers or to show how much we care for our nation's children."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No one becomes a teacher for the money. You're in the classroom because the rewards of being a teacher still compensate (on most days at least) for the low pay and long, grueling hours. Teaching after all is a public service, not a business. But are teaching and entrepreneurship mutually exclusive?

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think that these types of 'knowledge marketplace' websites are beneficial to teachers? If so, what benefits do you think they provide?

# data[].attributes.body
The article focuses a lot on what some of the faculty spent their money on. Is this important? If teachers are selling their course materials, should their money go back into the classroom?

# data[].attributes.body
As stated in the article, do you think the selling of classroom resources is 'cheapening' the teaching profession? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.body
Please read this article and then respond to the questions provided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones. Joseph McDonald, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University, said the online selling cheapens what teachers do and undermines efforts to build sites where educators freely exchange ideas and lesson plans.

"Teachers swapping ideas with one another, that's a great thing," he said. "But somebody asking 75 cents for a word puzzle reduces the power of the learning community and is ultimately destructive to the profession."

Teachers like Erica Bohrer, though, see the new demand for lessons as long-awaited recognition of their worth.

"Teaching can be a thankless job," said Ms. Bohrer, 30, who has used the $650 she earned in the past year to add books to a reading nook in her first-grade classroom at Daniel Street Elementary School on Long Island and to help with mortgage payments. "I put my hard-earned time and effort into creating these things, and I just would like credit."

The humble lesson plan has gained value as focus on testing and individualized instruction has increased. At the same time, the Internet has diminished the isolation of classroom teachers. Just about every imaginable lesson for preschool through college is now up for sale - on individual teachers' blogs as well as commercial sites where buyers can review and grade the material.

Teachers Pay Teachers, one of the largest such sites, with more than 200,000 registered users, has recorded $600,000 in sales since it was started in 2006 - $450,000 of that in the past year, said its founder, Paul Edelman, a former New York City teacher. The top seller, a high school English teacher in California, has made $36,000 in sales.

Another site, We Are Teachers, went online last year with a "knowledge marketplace" that includes lesson plans and online tutoring.

Kelly Gionti, a teacher at the High School for Law, Advocacy and Community Justice in Manhattan, has sold $2,544 worth of unit plans for "The Catcher in the Rye" and "The Great Gatsby," among others, helping finance trips to Rome and Ireland, as well as class supplies.

Margaret Whisnant, a retired teacher in North Carolina, earns an average of $750 a month from lessons based on her three decades of teaching middle school classics like "The Outsiders," enough to pay for new kitchen counters and appliances.

"I have wanted to redo my kitchen for 20 years, and I just could not get the funds together," she said. "Well, now I'm going to have to learn to cook."

Lisa Michalek, 40, who taught for six years in Rochester and now works for Aventa Learning, a for-profit online education company, said she spent about five hours a week tweaking old lesson plans and creating new ones, like an earth science curriculum that sells for $59.95.

"I knew I had good lessons, so I thought, 'Why not see what other people think of it?' " Ms. Michalek said.

After $31,000 in sales, she has her answer. Alice Coburn, 56, a vocational education teacher in Goshen, N.Y., said she saved two to three hours each time she downloaded Ms. Michalek's PowerPoint presentations instead of starting from scratch. "I hate reinventing the wheel," Ms. Coburn said.

Others find comfort in having a class-tested lesson by a more experienced teacher. Lauren Perreca, 24, used a $10 lesson on the Vietnam War novel "Fallen Angels" as a reference last year while creating her own lesson for her classes at Weston High School in Connecticut. She also revised her reading questions about "Lord of the Flies" after comparing them with two other lesson plans.

"At first I was self-conscious I had bought something, because what did that say about me?" she said. "But I realized I wasn't just taking it and using it, I was adapting it to fill in the gaps of my knowledge."

Now Ms. Perreca has started selling her own lesson plans, like a 54-page "Macbeth" unit with quizzes and homework assignments ($10) that she wrote in graduate school. She said she spent $140 of her $523 in earnings on cookies and books for her students, and used the rest to splurge on dinners out that she could not otherwise afford.

Her students are incredulous. "They're like, 'Who would want to buy those? They're so boring,' " Ms. Perreca said. "I'm like, 'Hey, I'm making money.' "

In Ms. Bohrer's class the other day in Lindenhurst, N.Y., five children were counting M&Ms while she made sure they digested the lesson before the candy. The exercise, which comes with directions, sorting mats and work sheets, has sold 31 times for $3 a pop. A variation with Lucky Charms is popular around St. Patrick's Day, she said.

"M&M sorting is not a new concept," said Ms. Bohrer, who has been teaching since 2001. "I made it easier for teachers to do. They just have to click and print."

Daniel Street's principal, Frank Picozzi, said he supported Ms. Bohrer's online business because his students reaped the benefits of her initiative and creativity.

Ms. Bohrer recalled that when she used to share her lesson plans at no charge, a poster of her reading strategies was passed around so many times that it ended up with a teacher in another school who had no idea where it came from.

"I'll share with friends," Ms. Bohrer said, "and if anyone else likes it, I'll tell them where to buy it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Selling Lesson Plans Online, Teachers Raise Cash and Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones. Joseph McDonald, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University , said the online selling cheapens what teachers do and undermines efforts to build sites where educators freely exchange ideas and lesson plans.