Tell me about writing and selling curricula
February 26, 2024 9:47 PM Subscribe
I need information for someone who is an unusually positioned expert in a topic. They are curious about creating a curriculum and possibly selling it. Where can I find information about how to do this?
The market for the curriculum is not teachers, but teachers of teachers this would be for professional development sessions for elementary/middle/high school teachers, professional development and training for faculty members or staff at a college level, and possibly hr professionals. This is a type of diversity training.
The market for the curriculum is not teachers, but teachers of teachers this would be for professional development sessions for elementary/middle/high school teachers, professional development and training for faculty members or staff at a college level, and possibly hr professionals. This is a type of diversity training.
^ that is not remotely true, people sell curricula all the time, literally there's a whole industry.
There are a few ways to go about this; many of the larger textbook companies employ curriculum developers and many of them work in the professional development/teacher's college space. Your friend could get a job with one of them, either as staff or a consultant, but then they wouldn't specifically own it.
Another way is to simply do it: create the curriculum (and yes, paywall it and copyright it), put out a shingle, create a web presence/social media presence, begin offering classes maybe or seminars, and just grind at it until they have a following. If they have solid credentials and are working in the field already, so much the better.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:30 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
There are a few ways to go about this; many of the larger textbook companies employ curriculum developers and many of them work in the professional development/teacher's college space. Your friend could get a job with one of them, either as staff or a consultant, but then they wouldn't specifically own it.
Another way is to simply do it: create the curriculum (and yes, paywall it and copyright it), put out a shingle, create a web presence/social media presence, begin offering classes maybe or seminars, and just grind at it until they have a following. If they have solid credentials and are working in the field already, so much the better.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:30 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
My first thought is that trying to market the curriculum will probably be more work than creating it. Depending on what they want from this, it might work better to contact organizations that are already selling curriculum into this marketplace and see if they would hire your friend to create the desired curriculum.
posted by metahawk at 10:24 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
posted by metahawk at 10:24 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
I'm an instructional designer. I develop curricula as a consultant. Creating a course takes much more work than assembling facts.
As 'We put our faith..." says, this is a whole industry with very big, very small, and everything-in-between players. Your acquaintance needs to research terms like "course development", "custom course development", and "instructional design". When I began to work independently, former colleagues told me that Upwork.com is a good place to find work as an independent, so it would be good place for someone like your acquaintance to find good instructional designers and curriculum developers, too.
One can, of course, do exactly as WPOFIBH suggests and do it oneself. Two caveats. 1) Creating a course is more than assembling content and putting it in front of people, or rather, creating a good course is about more than that. My doctorate is not simply a piece of paper. 2) Course authoring software is extremely useful and therefore pricey, between $700 and $1200 US for a year's license. Like all sophisticated software, it's pretty easy to start using, but using it well takes some learning. A lot of the animations, interactivities, quizzes, and story-telling are possible in PowerPoint, but you'd have to be an expert user there, too. And this assumes one is using the software with existing knowledge of learning science.
Because course development is more than having a subject matter expert put all they know in a PowerPoint deck, these services are expensive. The ratio of development hours to course length starts at about 60:1 — one hour of development for every one minute of training for a very basic face-to-face course that is largely a "sage on the stage". Moving to a very basic eLearning course the ratio increases to about 120:1. An eLearning course with some bells and whistles goes to 180:1. Add custom characters, animation, and sophisticated interactivity, and the cost climbs to about 300:1. I've seen quotes over 700:1.
posted by angiep at 9:45 PM on February 27 [3 favorites]
As 'We put our faith..." says, this is a whole industry with very big, very small, and everything-in-between players. Your acquaintance needs to research terms like "course development", "custom course development", and "instructional design". When I began to work independently, former colleagues told me that Upwork.com is a good place to find work as an independent, so it would be good place for someone like your acquaintance to find good instructional designers and curriculum developers, too.
One can, of course, do exactly as WPOFIBH suggests and do it oneself. Two caveats. 1) Creating a course is more than assembling content and putting it in front of people, or rather, creating a good course is about more than that. My doctorate is not simply a piece of paper. 2) Course authoring software is extremely useful and therefore pricey, between $700 and $1200 US for a year's license. Like all sophisticated software, it's pretty easy to start using, but using it well takes some learning. A lot of the animations, interactivities, quizzes, and story-telling are possible in PowerPoint, but you'd have to be an expert user there, too. And this assumes one is using the software with existing knowledge of learning science.
Because course development is more than having a subject matter expert put all they know in a PowerPoint deck, these services are expensive. The ratio of development hours to course length starts at about 60:1 — one hour of development for every one minute of training for a very basic face-to-face course that is largely a "sage on the stage". Moving to a very basic eLearning course the ratio increases to about 120:1. An eLearning course with some bells and whistles goes to 180:1. Add custom characters, animation, and sophisticated interactivity, and the cost climbs to about 300:1. I've seen quotes over 700:1.
posted by angiep at 9:45 PM on February 27 [3 favorites]
I was too terse in my answer above (#1) so let me expand. I am not writing that creating curricula does not require training, experience, insight, revision, (and probably other things: this is not my field); that is, it requires work. I'm asserting that copyright doesn't cover work. Copyright, according to the US Copyright Office covers
"Original Works
"Works are original when they are independently created by a human author and have a minimal degree of creativity. Independent creation simply means that you create it yourself, without copying. The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity. There are some things, however, that are not creative, like: titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; and mere listings of ingredients or contents. And always keep in mind that copyright protects expression, and never ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
"Fixed Works
"A work is fixed when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time."
I am also not asserting that people do not exist who would respect the creator's work and expertise and pay for the curriculum, although legally they wouldn't have to.
I used recipes as an example of something not copyrightable. To create a truly new and useful recipe requires training, experience, insight, revision, (and probably other things: this is not my field); that is, it requires work. But a recipe is not an expression and so not copyrightable. To make this a little more mysterious, if the words used in describing the recipe have a spark or modicum of creativity, the creative words could be copywritten. But the recipe would still be able to be used by others without regard to the original creator, just not the creative words used in the description.
(BTW, recipes are also not considered "useful inventions" and so cannot be patented.)
posted by tmdonahue at 5:43 AM on March 4
"Original Works
"Works are original when they are independently created by a human author and have a minimal degree of creativity. Independent creation simply means that you create it yourself, without copying. The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity. There are some things, however, that are not creative, like: titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; and mere listings of ingredients or contents. And always keep in mind that copyright protects expression, and never ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
"Fixed Works
"A work is fixed when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time."
I am also not asserting that people do not exist who would respect the creator's work and expertise and pay for the curriculum, although legally they wouldn't have to.
I used recipes as an example of something not copyrightable. To create a truly new and useful recipe requires training, experience, insight, revision, (and probably other things: this is not my field); that is, it requires work. But a recipe is not an expression and so not copyrightable. To make this a little more mysterious, if the words used in describing the recipe have a spark or modicum of creativity, the creative words could be copywritten. But the recipe would still be able to be used by others without regard to the original creator, just not the creative words used in the description.
(BTW, recipes are also not considered "useful inventions" and so cannot be patented.)
posted by tmdonahue at 5:43 AM on March 4
Response by poster: This is not correct. Most curricula are copyrightable. You may have a misconception about the nature of curricula. Some curricula may be simple compilations of facts or compilations of creative works under copyright in other forms. Those would not be copyrightable, but they would also not be really curricula. They would be lists.
Most curricula are much more complex than that and their purpose is to provide a framework and original exercises for teaching, learning, and retention of material. For example, here is a curriculum I have encountered in my children’s education: Superflex/Social Thinking. Its author has taken concepts from current child development research and practice and formulated them for use by teaches, therapists, students, and parents, including simplified explanations, worksheets, activities, and illustrations. This curricula is more similar to a textbook than a list (and of course textbooks are copyrightable). In fact, this can catch educators off guard sometimes when they create a curricula for a class they have been hired to teach without securing legal protection for the materials they create, which the institution can then claim knowledge of (I once had someone try to include an explicit claim to material created into a contract with a client).
posted by bq at 8:41 AM on March 4
Most curricula are much more complex than that and their purpose is to provide a framework and original exercises for teaching, learning, and retention of material. For example, here is a curriculum I have encountered in my children’s education: Superflex/Social Thinking. Its author has taken concepts from current child development research and practice and formulated them for use by teaches, therapists, students, and parents, including simplified explanations, worksheets, activities, and illustrations. This curricula is more similar to a textbook than a list (and of course textbooks are copyrightable). In fact, this can catch educators off guard sometimes when they create a curricula for a class they have been hired to teach without securing legal protection for the materials they create, which the institution can then claim knowledge of (I once had someone try to include an explicit claim to material created into a contract with a client).
posted by bq at 8:41 AM on March 4
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by tmdonahue at 5:26 AM on February 27