The marketplace versus the free, intellectual commons...

Teachers pay Teachers started in April 2006. We started in May 2006. They claim to have over 4000 registered users, 400 of whom are "sellers" of curriculum products. We currently have an undisclosed, though far more modest number of users and an even smaller number of curriculum creators...

While Open Educator has not yet engaged a comparably assertive marketing and media campaign to attract users, the initial growth curves would seem to suggest that the marketplace model for getting quality, original teaching resources online is superior to the non-profit, pro-bono model we nurture.

Is this so? We don't yet know, but we will attempt to make the case to the contrary.

Some points to consider:

- University faculty do not conduct research or create groundbreaking knowledge products because they seek publishing royalties, but rather because such accomplishments earn them collegial esteem and enhanced employability.

- Shared teaching resources are valuable insofar as they are adaptable to the context of the teacher and the needs of the students. Curriculum is more likely to evolve to fit the needs of specific populations and contexts when it can be freely modified, and these modifications can then be shared, forked into a separate version, and supported by a community of users.

- Curriculum is much more than worksheets and lesson plans. Building a community of curriculum users has the power to bring much-needed discourse, reflection, and support to our methodology. Herein lies the untapped value of our colleagues, not in the worksheets themselves. A marketplace model for sharing planning ideas prioritizes intellectual property rights at the expense of building a true community of practice.