Wait Students Organized Against Racism (SOAR) is a PEG thing? That's a club at ETHS. I have no idea what they do (not a member, nor are any of my friends), but I assumed it was some political
advocacy group that grew organically out of Evanston. That's really odd.
What is really sad for me is the amount of time and resources Tom puts in to share what’s going on in our school districts and really what will come of it. We are locked into a “progressive, liberal “ community which believes that anything, any idea which presents itself as pro-equity, anti racism is championed. Once you use those words you are virtue signaling and everyone “buys” into those programs and activities
It wins elections because I think most Evanston voters are well meaning and support equity in theory (consider me one). But when you look closely, it's not equity at all - it's profiteering.
The whole DEI Industrial Complex is a complete sham. People and institutions feel guilty about structural inequalities and companies like PEG offer (for a nice price) the ability to assuage their guilt. It works great for both sides. The District can say "We are doing these trainings so we are no longer to blame for the problem" and can feel better about themselves. Because of the superficial nature of the DEI intervention, the structural problems will persist and PEG's services will forever be in-demand.
So the whole thing is a waste of time and resources for D202.
However, I don't think the intellectual property issue in the contract is that unique. Many software packages require a yearly licensure fee or require you to pay for upgrades that make your previous versions unusable. Companies like Amazon control the DRM of books you buy on your kindle, etc... PEG is just following the latest trends in monetezation of intellectual property.
Sure, it sucks. But the most egregious thing they are doing is selling exploiting feelings of guilt to sell a product that is not likely going to solve any problems facing schools.
I know, I was using software as an example. There are lots of other companies that restrict the reproduction of printed material as well. For example, Pearson (a big education publisher) has restrictions on circulation of many of their classroom materials: https://www.pearsonassessments.com/footer/legal-policies.html
It is just a way for companies to continue to monetize their intellectual property. It is not atypical in the educational realm.
PEG is probably restricting use of their materials for a combo of reasons; monetizing and hiding how bogus their product is.
These terms do seem outrageous. So are these districts required to get multiple bids for this type of training at this cost? It wouldn’t have a fancy trademark on it, but I’d imagine that every University in town could provide similar training - I don’t know why they wouldn’t shop around.
I disagree with you, however, that they should be required to incorporate as a nonprofit. You could say that about any Ed tech or education publishing company. Nonprofit is a tax status, not a business model.
The rule with contracts is that if it is < $25,000 there is no bidding required. In the case when it is >$25,000 there are some bidding rules but generally most districts kind ignore this and claim the exemption which says "contracts for the services of individuals possessing a high degree of professional skill where the ability or fitness of the individual plays an important part" are exempt from bidding rules. (105 ILCS 5/10-20.21) D65 for instance bids out food services, transport, security and a few other things but pretty much nothing else.
RE: non-profits. I think it would be equally as bad if staff members were giving talks or developing intellectual property for an ed tech or publishing company. I wonder to what degree that is happening?
Wait Students Organized Against Racism (SOAR) is a PEG thing? That's a club at ETHS. I have no idea what they do (not a member, nor are any of my friends), but I assumed it was some political
advocacy group that grew organically out of Evanston. That's really odd.
So they claim, although it doesn't look like they own a trademark on it, so who knows if it's enforceable.
Interesting.
What is really sad for me is the amount of time and resources Tom puts in to share what’s going on in our school districts and really what will come of it. We are locked into a “progressive, liberal “ community which believes that anything, any idea which presents itself as pro-equity, anti racism is championed. Once you use those words you are virtue signaling and everyone “buys” into those programs and activities
It wins elections because I think most Evanston voters are well meaning and support equity in theory (consider me one). But when you look closely, it's not equity at all - it's profiteering.
The whole DEI Industrial Complex is a complete sham. People and institutions feel guilty about structural inequalities and companies like PEG offer (for a nice price) the ability to assuage their guilt. It works great for both sides. The District can say "We are doing these trainings so we are no longer to blame for the problem" and can feel better about themselves. Because of the superficial nature of the DEI intervention, the structural problems will persist and PEG's services will forever be in-demand.
So the whole thing is a waste of time and resources for D202.
However, I don't think the intellectual property issue in the contract is that unique. Many software packages require a yearly licensure fee or require you to pay for upgrades that make your previous versions unusable. Companies like Amazon control the DRM of books you buy on your kindle, etc... PEG is just following the latest trends in monetezation of intellectual property.
Sure, it sucks. But the most egregious thing they are doing is selling exploiting feelings of guilt to sell a product that is not likely going to solve any problems facing schools.
This isn't software, though!
I know, I was using software as an example. There are lots of other companies that restrict the reproduction of printed material as well. For example, Pearson (a big education publisher) has restrictions on circulation of many of their classroom materials: https://www.pearsonassessments.com/footer/legal-policies.html
It is just a way for companies to continue to monetize their intellectual property. It is not atypical in the educational realm.
PEG is probably restricting use of their materials for a combo of reasons; monetizing and hiding how bogus their product is.
This is good to know: Pearson - thanks for this!!
These terms do seem outrageous. So are these districts required to get multiple bids for this type of training at this cost? It wouldn’t have a fancy trademark on it, but I’d imagine that every University in town could provide similar training - I don’t know why they wouldn’t shop around.
I disagree with you, however, that they should be required to incorporate as a nonprofit. You could say that about any Ed tech or education publishing company. Nonprofit is a tax status, not a business model.
The rule with contracts is that if it is < $25,000 there is no bidding required. In the case when it is >$25,000 there are some bidding rules but generally most districts kind ignore this and claim the exemption which says "contracts for the services of individuals possessing a high degree of professional skill where the ability or fitness of the individual plays an important part" are exempt from bidding rules. (105 ILCS 5/10-20.21) D65 for instance bids out food services, transport, security and a few other things but pretty much nothing else.
RE: non-profits. I think it would be equally as bad if staff members were giving talks or developing intellectual property for an ed tech or publishing company. I wonder to what degree that is happening?
Nice grift if you can get it.
Sounds very cult like.