JIMMY-JO RESPONDS

Thank you, Mr. Ross, for replying. My wife called as I was writing that post and I said to her that it is unfortunate we are cocooned in this program and that what we write or present, really goes unchallenged and is without consequence. We get a grade and some feedback, but that is where it ends. So, I appreciate the response. As teachers,we should be able to justify our positions when questioned.

Let me begin by saying that I am not opposed to many of the concepts of the free market. Besides being published, as I mentioned in the previous blog, I also ran my own business for several years without many moral qualms about the system that business existed within. Everyone has the right to make a dollar.

Although I stand behind everything I wrote in the initial blog, I do want to clarify the heart of my argument.

1...The only "commodity" I believe in as a teacher is opportunity. I recognize there are barriers in place, most often in the form of school budgets and apathetic political values. I am ideological enough to believe that teachers would seek out and develop resources which they would willingly make available to others, free of the influence of monetary value. There is no denying, our skills are part of a massive market called "education," but I, perhaps naively, believe we are in this business not, as you pointed out in your presentation, "to make money," but provide opportunities, regardless of socioeconomic status or monetary biases. Maybe my school in Smalltown, Canada, doesn't have the budget, or I don't have the money because as a new teacher I'm stuck paying off my 5 figure student loan, to even buy your simulation. And certainly not to keep buying it every class thereafter. In my mind, a discrimination is introduced based purely on one's financial status. Meanwhile, Richschool, in Centreoftheuniverse, Canada can pony up the cash, even bring you in to help facilitate teachers through the process. One set of students benefits, the other are denied the opportunity. And yes, before the counter argument is even presented, I will agree 100%, it is therefore incumbent upon me to provide my class with an alternative, just as stimulating and rewarding.

2...Which leads me to my second "argument." What if I then create something I feel is just as, if not more valuable, than your simulation, and copyright it? And I charge for its use? For me, this is really the heart of my position. Is a precedent being set (is there a previous precedent?), whereby a large corporate body could just start copyrighting lessons? I really don't know, but that's where I could see this sort of thing going, especially as privatization becomes more appealing to governments looking to unload the "cost" of their responsibilities.

I have zero issue with selling the books, selling the program, selling it online, charging for speaking and conducting workshops in schools and universities. None of that. My issue is the $299.00 first time fee and the $99.00 charge per class thereafter. It just doesn't sit well with me and I find the implications dangerous, especially in light of your comment that "the lessons me and my colleagues have delivered have been anything but commodities." Well, they are now!

Finally, I would like to respond to one particular point you made about what I wrote, and present a couple of questions.

I didn't mean to imply in my original blog that you "invented simulations." I meant quite the opposite, actually. I was more trying to point out that you merely copyrighted your simulation.

You did all this work and are now bringing it to the public in a myriad of different ways. You don't have to answer this question, but as I wrote in the beginning of this blog, I think we as teachers do have to be prepared to defend our positions. That said:

1...How do you justify charging the same teacher or class over and over again for the same product? Why isn't it enough to sell your product once to a class or teacher?

2...You mention in your response to me that I "don't like that [you] are building a business out of the notion of simulations" and that you "really get that sentiment." I would be interested in knowing just how you get my sentiment. Like I already said, I don't have a problem with you making a business out of simulations. I just have a problem with it when it imposes a barrier ($$) to students' opportunities. It seems a case of the haves getting what the have-nots cannot, simply because there is a monetary barrier.

Thank-you again for responding. I was flabbergasted to be honest. I think your ideas and your simulations are the most productive teaching tool I have come across in this entire program. The opportunities your model presents are infinite. You have given us a lot to think about beyond just your simulations and for that, I'm sure, we are all grateful.

-james

If anyone in the program is reading this, I'm interested in what you think. Remember, we are teaching in a public school system, which is supposed to be free, unbiased and accessible to all. More and more fees are being introduced for everything from students having to pay for being on a sports team to taking the school bus to and from home, while at the same time services are being cut back and schools being closed, predominately in "poorer" districts.

This is the first case I have heard about where an actual lesson -within a class, versus being sold online as a one time charge- cannot be used within that public system unless paid for. Do you know of another?

What do you think about corporate influences in schools? How much is too much?