Written and compiled by: Mary Brown, Karen Eder, Paul Sundberg, Maggie Valcik, for EPS 313
(as part of the University of Illinois ' CTER online program under the direction of Nicholas C. Burbules )
I. Introduction
IV. Appendices
V. References
I. Introduction
Someone somewhere out there is aiming to sell something to your grade-school students. It might be a technology company trying to hook students on a new computer-based video game or a non-tech soft drink company trying to sell them Coke products from school vending machines. And these companies are sharing tips with each other, such as at the "In-School Marketing ‘99" conference. "Marketers have come to realize that all roads eventually lead to the schools," Ed Winter, co-founder of Channel One, has said.
I.a. Commercialization in education and budget realities
This phenomenon of "commercialization" or "commercialism", making awkward bedfellows of non-profit schools and for-profit corporations, is not a complete stranger to US public schools, which since at least 1890 have led fund drives in "welcomed partnership" with candy companies to sell chocolate bars, for example (the profit from which partly returns to the company) and collected proofs of purchase labels from cereal boxes for school supplies. But with the almost universal wiring of US public schools for the internet in the 1990s, the potential reach of commerce and advertising into schools has increased exponentially. As Callister and Burbules (2003) have written:
"An increase in the amount of time students have access to the Internet comes with a worrisome increase in commercialization, surveillance, and loss of privacy. For the sake of education, we potentially serve up our students to those who would exploit them commercially and sometimes personally."
The "information superhighway", it turns out, is a two-way street leading not only out of the schools, helping to broaden students’ minds, but also into them, bringing in not only pornographic websites, but a flood of advertising and thinly-disguised marketing schemes aimed at children.
There are, unfortunately, solid economic reasons why so many schools have been forced to turn to corporations for funding and donated materials. State education budgets for education have declined steeply since the dot-com implosion in 2000 and the economic recession. According to David Shreve, education lobbyist for the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), "primary education already account[s] for 35 percent to 70 percent of state budgets," budgets that have shrunk due to decreasing taxes and assistance from the federal government. Higher education has been especially hard hit. NCSL also claims in a study that 31 of the 43 states that had finalized their 2004 budgets had cut spending, with few raising taxes to compensate, and a whopping 48 state budgets are currently in the red (Reuters. "Education law tries thin state budgets." July 31, 2003). Illinois lawmakers, on the other hand, have largely tried to spare the state’s K-12 budget for 2004, even increasing the state’s per-pupil payment, while cutting many other sectors, including higher education.
BACK TO TOP
I.b. Types of commercialization
Commercial involvement in schools is very widespread. Corporate involvement includes both technical and non-technical sponsorship. Non-technical sponsorship is probably the largest type of involvement at this point. It includes the following examples to name a few.
Large corporations such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Co have exclusive contracts with many schools. In return for only offering their products in the schools or districts, they donate money or other items such as scoreboards. Vernon Hills in suburban Chicago made a deal with paint-maker Rust-Oleum, to have their football stadium sponsored by the company. Many lunchrooms have corporate food sponsors. Target Stores will donate cash to schools if patrons use their credit card and have signed up do have funds donated. Some school districts have even have credit cards, Visa or Mastercard, that you can apply for and a percentage of the purchases go to the district.
Smaller types of commercialism include programs often run by volunteer organizations in the schools such as Parent Teacher Organizations. They include things like collecting Campbell’s Soup label or General Mills box tops which can be turned in to earn money or free products. Schwanns, a frozen food home delivery company, also donates funds to schools when families have signed up with the company and purchase their items. Some schools sell coupon books or buy cards that include various discounts at local stores or restaurants. Pizza-hut and Six flags also sponsor reading programs in which they award free pizza and Great America tickets to kids for meeting certain reading goals. The students can then use the tickets. However, other family members must purchase theirs.
Chicago Public schools currently engages in corporately sponsored programs such as Coca-Cola’s Attendance program and Pizza Hut’s Book-it program. Schools’ cooperation in these programs is sometimes optional, although the school board encourages it. These programs are on another branch of commercialism than traditional ads in school because they offer their products as incentives for students. Some schools offer fund raisers, and these can include selling candy and nuts to selling taffy apples to benefit the Pre-K program. Chicago Public schools does not allow advertisements, and does not use services such as those supplied by Channel One.
Even public universities, such as the University of Illinois and other land-grant institutions, are not immune to commercialism. The U of I, for instance, is now officially a "Coca Cola school," with that company having sole rights to the vending machine sales of soft drinks. And the board of trustees has actively sought out investment and research presence by major corporations such as Motorola, which is sure to have an influence on the direction student and departmental research takes. Major computer corporations (e.g. Sun Microsystems) also fund graduate researchers in the U of I’s famed electrical engineering department.
BACK TO TOP
II. Commercialization and Technology Partnership
II.a. Kinds of corporate involvement
Commercialization in schools has become a hotly debated topic over the past decade. There can be benefits and downfalls for both the schools and the corporations. To get a better understanding of how this issue unfolds, we must first look at the companies and brand names who are involved with schools. Computers and technology can be very expensive for a school to obtain. Computer companies realize this. Many, like Apple, Dell, Acer, and IBM have donated hardware or funds to schools. Other companies have contributed other technology tools. Channel One provides schools with free VCRs, and TVs. Some companies who provide money for schools to use at their discretion (possibly for technology needs) are General Mills, and Campbell’s. Still other companies like Coca-Cola and Pizza-Hut offer their products as an incentive for work well done, or excellent attendance. The Chicago White Sox baseball team offers free tickets to exemplary grade school children. Some companies are more removed from schools, selling coupon books through the PTA or offering their products through fund raising efforts. In a number of communities, the local Ford and GM Dealerships provide driver’s education cars through a deal with the school.
Why might a company invest in a school? The reasons are numerous. The easiest reason to see might be the fact that students are consumers too. According to CNN’s Lou Dobbs, it is estimated that teenagers and kids spend about $300 on “stuff”. This translates to market worth about $170 billion. Not only do young people spend their money, they spend their parents’ money as well. Kids sometimes have a say in what their parents buy at the grocery store, or what shoes they will wear to school. Students are also “future-consumers”. They will soon be growing up and using their own money to buy products. This is an important future market. Here is where brand loyalty also comes into play. Getting students hooked on a brand of a certain soft drink while they are young will ensure companies a lifetime of sales from that individual. Sometimes companies are simply looking for another location to sell their product. If we look at the soft drink example, we can find that many school districts have soda machines in their lunch areas. They are already making money selling their product right there in the school! An underlying and sneaky reason for a company to offer goods to a school is for their own benefit. Some companies offer free computers to schools in exchange for the right to track students’ whereabouts on the Internet or collect addresses by using “cookies”. Sometimes students do not even know they are being watched. The company keeps track of this data and uses it for it’s own benefit. One final shifty reason that businesses might choose to give money or goods to schools is because they see that schools are growing, and funds are shrinking. They know that federal budgets can not pay for these large schools, and neither can taxpayers. They feel that eventually, the businesses will end up paying out larger taxes so that schools can be financed. In order to avoid this, companies can begin to give back to schools now. Perhaps if donations were begun earlier, there might never be a tax crisis as mentioned.
Whatever the reason, brand names are seeping into schools. Companies push all kinds of products on students. The most noticeable are the soft drink machines. They make the product readily available. Coke is one of the biggest names in school advertisements, and they are able to get their product right into schools. Some other companies put their products in schools in different ways. Companies put their names on athletic apparel worn by school athletes. An athletic shoe company might make athletic shoes with their symbol on them and market them to cheerleaders. When the cheerleaders wear the shoes as their uniforms, the company logo is displayed. Or companies might bid to supply team uniforms, and place their logo on the sleeve. Another “item” companies may try to sell is entertainment. Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox have been known to advertise in schools through Channel One. Students might see movie previews through these commercials. Students may also find ads for games or toys in these commercials. It makes sense for toy corporations to advertise during cartoons, why not on through a program that targets kids in schools? In the example where Ford and GM donate or practically donate cars, it’s obvious they are looking to get their product out to first time drivers, most of who will buy a car sooner or later.
In order to sell their products, companies have some interesting ways of marketing them in schools. With regard to technology, computer and audiovisual companies often donate computers or other equipment, or offer it at sensationally low prices. If a student becomes comfortable with an IBM computer that he used in school, he is likely to buy and IBM in the future. In some cases, technology companies will donate scoreboards, cameras or stopwatches for school use. Some Internet service provider companies will offer discounted or free web access to a school, provided they use it for a certain amount of time each day. Frequently, deals like this one also come with tracking software, or built-in advertisements. Businesses can also donate software or computer games with advertisements in the software or corporate logos in the games. There are many other ways companies advertise in schools with no benefit to technology. They sell their product at the school (soda machines), they sponsor awards programs, and they use schools as a place to distribute samples of their products. Some large companies like Campbell’s offer rewards to schools for buying their product. Some do just the opposite, offer their product as a reward for scholastic achievement. Companies have been known to sponsor teacher training and provide worksheets and lesson plans involving their products. M&M’s and Skittles have become popular math manipulatives, complete with lesson plans on how to use them. Perhaps the fairest way that companies advertise in schools is by buying the right. Companies bid on exclusive contracts with school districts to supply them with computers, copy paper, consulting, anything a school district might need. An example of an exclusive contract is the one that Chicago Public Schools has with computer consulting company, Sentinel. This company is the only computer consulting company the district works with. The district chose this company based on their bid.
It’s obvious to say that schools can benefit from letting companies and their advertisements in. Schools can reel in thousands and thousands of dollars in material benefits and money from their corporate partners. Schools gain recent hardware and updated software. They receive new team uniforms. Sometimes administrators and high ranking teachers receive special fringe benefits or perks to sway them into buying a certain product for their school. Oftentimes, schools are simply given money. They spend this money on anything from scanners to library books. Schools can also use corporate sponsorships in other ways. PTAs can use companies’ goods for fundraising ventures. Administrators and teachers can use free products to motivate students. Sometimes computer or technology companies may offer free Internet access. From exclusive contracts, schools can receive the opportunity to buy products at discount prices. These are all ways that the school can benefit from a commercial contract. All of these benefits are one reason that schools continue to welcome businesses relationships. There are other reasons as well.
Many schools agree that enrollment is increasing every year. Teachers have bigger class sizes, and administrators struggle to fit everyone in the building. This increased enrollment trend means that schools will need more money. They need it now, and they will need it in the future. Accepting money from corporations is an easy way for schools to get the money they need. In addition to high enrollment, schools face a considerable shrinkage of available funds. Tight budgets become tighter, and activities and programs need to be cut. Schools need to find money to pay for programs they worked hard to establish. Perhaps the knowing factor is that schools feel a great amount of pressure to stay current in technology. Technology changes weekly, and schools struggle to keep up with this pace. Computers need to be replaced in a few years, and who is going to pay for that? Software becomes dated, and should be replaced. No school wants to have old news. This is the main reason schools attach to computer companies. They need technology resources.
As long as companies continue to pass out money to schools, they will keep taking it. The schools can see all the benefits they have, and now that they have them, it will be hard to give them up. Currently, corporate sponsors have a place in education. Schools benefit from their products by offering a little of what they have. Perhaps it makes good business sense for all involved to continue the relationship.
BACK TO TOP
II.b.1. Philosophical and ethical positions
What philosophies are there when talking about commercialization in our public school? There seem to be many view points, ranging from having absolutely no commercialization in our schools, to having unlimited commercialization.
Several groups, such as the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education exist. These organizations try to act as watch groups for public education and the children involved. Many contend that there should be no commercialization in public schools. By bringing in corporations and commercialization, we are doing a disservice to our children.
We are exposing them to advertising in an environment that should be free from commercial involvement. Schools should be a safe place that promotes learning, and not yet another place for the corporate giants to influence children.
This view would lead some to argue that this “safe” environment, free from commercialization in not practical. Even the clothes children where to school, reflect commercialization. The textbooks they use now have pictures that contain advertisements. In order to achieve the commercial free school, districts would need to require strict dress codes and in some cases, use no textbooks. The commercial free school would require outside help from the state and federal level to regulate advertisements in textbooks and other curricular material.
At the other end of the pendulum are those who believe that there should be no regulation in the area of commercializing our schools. In a broad sense they believe “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware. In this case, the buyer would be the students, staff and communities of the school. If corporations are willing to donate money to school districts, those with this view say, “take it.” They are not concerned about any lasting influence that may occur. They may even argue that there is no proof this commercialization has any long-term negative effects on the schools and children; never mind that there has not been enough time to really study long-term effects.
In the middle, there is a large gamut of philosophies related to the commercialization of our school. Many groups and individuals take the view that commercialization is okay as long as it is controlled. If you pick and choose what sort of commercialization or corporate sponsorship you allow in schools, then it is okay. Some, such as a group that met at the University of
Wisconsin—Milwaukee in 1990, have come up with guidelines to use in determining whether or not schools should enter into partnerships with businesses. Their list included:
BACK TO TOP
II.b.2. Political and legal situation
While corporations are keenly aware of the vast market potential of public schools and what their competitors are doing in that sphere, the awareness does not work equally the other way. Parents, teachers, local school administrators, even educational journals, on the one hand, and local, state and federal lawmakers, on the other, are at best confused and at worst unaware of the steady growth of commercialization in schools.
It is instructive that the powerful "Education-Related Legislative Tracking Database" on the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures has no listing for "commercialization" or "business" or "for-profit" as "issue areas," whereas it does allow searches on issues such as "patriotism", "prayer and moment of silence", "before- and after-school programs" and "technology." Even a search of "technology", however, points out few connections between business and the Internet in schools. State legislatures, obviously, have yet to feel the full impact of corporate inroads into public education.
According to the US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on commercial activities in schools (2000), only "19 states currently have statutes or regulations that address school-related commercial activities."
FEDERAL LEVEL
The US government has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of technology in public education. Witness the personal visits of former president Clinton and Vice-president Al Gore to schools in the 1990’s to help wire schools for internet connection. This support has been mainly uncritical, however, seeing the "digital divide" as a simple injustice solved simply through increased technology spending and hardware.
Past congressional legislation dealing with technology and/or student rights in schools has included major acts such as:
A check of current legislation in both houses of Congress, showed that federal lawmakers were still obsessed with hardware fixes, as in Senate bill S.196 "Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003" or House bill H. R. 599 "To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide grants to improve the infrastructure of elementary and secondary schools" by providing access to the "information superhighway." A search with the term "commercialization" or "commercialism" turned up no bill connected with education in either the House or the Senate.
However, there has been some attention within the huge Washington bureaucracy to the issue of marketers’ preying on school children. In September of 2000, the General Accounting Office, which conducts research on how government programs are working, investigated the situation in all 50 states and wrote up a report entitled "Public Education: Commercial Activities in Schools." Its findings have been reported in more detail in previous CTER papers on commercialization, but the gist of the report is that local policies on the issue appear largely ad hoc and diverge widely from state to state. Many have no written policy; some are friendly to business, and some not.
The lawmakers who instigated the GAO investigation, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CN) & Rep. George Miller (D-CA), followed up the study by pressing for passage of the Student Privacy Protection Act as an amendment to the ESSA. Their amendment would have required school districts to obtain parental permission before allowing children to give any information to marketers Ð online or in writing. In its latest 2003 incarnation H.R. 1848, however, the SPPA was whittled down to concern for the privacy of student records, not markedly different from the much older FERPA law. Any threats to business have been carefully excised by business-friendly house Republicans.
STATE LEVEL
As at the national level, state legislators have been enthusiastic about technology hardware and internet connections and more blase about restricting corporate collaboration with school districts. In 2001, only 19 states had laws explicitly controlling any form of commercial activity in public schools.
The opposite trend is also in evidence, however. Florida legislators voted in favor of a law creating an online shopping site to benefit schools: the Florida Education Shopping Mall. A 2002 Virginia state house law (HB755) authorizes school boards to sign contracts with private business to "establish, install, renovate, remodel, or construct satellite classrooms for grades kindergarten through three on a site owned by the business or industry and leased to the school board for free." The sweetener for business: they are exempt from private business license tax. The old saying "The business of America is business" applies equally in the 21st century!
LOCAL LEGISLATION AND SCHOOL BOARDS
Each of America’s 15,000 school districts, at the moment, has reacted to the perils and promise of corporate funding in their own way.
According to Alex Molnar of Arizona State’s Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU), school boards in Seattle, Los Angeles, and Madison, Wisconsin have voted to limit commercial activities such as banning exclusive agreements with soft drink companies, and in some cases, asking sponsors to remove or limit school advertising.
Meanwhile, many more school boards are actively seeking out corporate sponsor-ship. In one example, agreeing to rename their gymnasium after their corporate sponsors, as the Brooklawn, New Jersey school district recently did. And in 2000, the New York City Board of Education voted to create its own Internet service and a website that would carry corporate ads.
ADVOCACY GROUPS
In the US, there are many groups that have been involved in this issue, mainly on the anti-commercialization side, obviously, because the lack of legal guidelines at the federal and state level has made it open season on schools for American corporations. But many voices within the US public school system have come out equally forcefully in favor of commercial involvement in schools. Molnar goes so far as to describe the current internal debate between these two forces as a "battle". "At this point it is too early to predict an outcome in the battle over marketing in schools - the evidence suggests either side may win" (Molnar & Reaves
2001).
Yet the news is not entirely grim for the anti-commercialists. According to Molnar, a grassroots citizens movement in Seattle managed to get the school board to end N2H2’s efforts at marketing to students by forcing it to remove banner ads in return for free filtering service to "protect" students from pornography. Citizens groups were also successful in driving ZapMe! Out of the education market, a corporation that Ralph Nader called a "corporate predator" because it offered schools free computers in return for exclusive rights to bombard students with ads and collect consumer behavior profiles from student computer users.
In fact, some of the more blatant commercialization efforts are already beginning to infringe on existing laws. In Colorado, Channel One offered a $500 bonus to teachers who signed up new schools, but this was found to be in violation of state ethics laws, in which public employees, including teachers, "must not be engaged as counsel, consultant, representative or agent to a business they deal with in an official capacity."
As administrators and teachers "in the trenches" have little guidance from above and from federal and state lawmakers Ð the responsibility at the moment falls largely to each school and district to decide its own complex relationship with outside for-profit entities. This is not to say that educators at all levels should not at the same time become activists, writing their state and federal lawmakers to propose legislation defining clearer boundaries for commercialization in schools. Both tacks are necessary at present. As for an advocacy role for teachers and local administrators, there is strength in numbers, obviously, and many consumer and education advocacy groups exist with whom teachers can work (see appendix at end of this paper).
BACK TO TOP
II.c. Schools’ responses to commercialization
“Reduced funding for curriculum development and for the purchase of high-quality materials makes it more likely that school boards will enter into agreements that expose students to curricular materials that promote corporate interests.” (Public Education In the Public Sector- http://www.ctf-fce.ca/e/what/ni/public.htm) Many schools across the US have already entered into these types of agreements. Deals with Coke or Pepsi, magazine, textbook and computer companies are a few among the many corporate sponsors of educational materials. Criticized by the public, parent groups and even some students, many school boards are forced to confess that with limited resources and more desperate times, they must turn to any funding that becomes available, regardless of how desperate the measures.
Many corporate contracts are made between a particular school district and a corporation. Individual schools almost never have the capabilities to enter into a corporate negotiation independently or withdraw from a district contract. This factor alone gives the district a significant amount of negotiating abilities, a quality that is necessary amidst so many lucrative offers. In situations like Coke vs. Pepsi or food products, there are many angles to consider. For the most part such corporations will provide profit sharing, discounted products, materials like plates, cups, pens & pencils (with particular logo) under the condition that their product is exclusively sold within the district. Larger corporations lure the administration and board with incentives and fringe benefits, a practice that if spotted by the taxpayers may cause a significant amount of friction. More conscientious school districts will negotiate away from the personal incentives and toward a better deal, one that earns the school a larger symbol of their exclusive carrier- a scoreboard or menuboard. Many of these contributions are threatened by governmental policies that are being put in effect to protect the students. If the government passes bills to prevent the consumption of soft drinks, the schools will be forced to act accordingly, however the cost implications the district will incur is immeasurable.
Technological corporate contracts are different from other types of corporate contracts with the education industry. Technology contracts are usually set up by the state. The Illinois State Board of Education has negotiated educational discounts with multiple companies that will assist in increasing the technological capabilities of Illinois school districts. The boundaries of the negotiations were set by Governor Edgar to increase Internet access to students. For example, a school gets discounted TI lines through SBC Ameritec as long as it increases student Internet access. A TI line, therefore, that connects a series of schools in a district is not discounted by such an agreement. The diversity of the companies in agreement with the state purchasing board allows schools to opt which company they prefer to conduct business with.
By law, school districts have a judicial responsibility to spend tax payers’ money in the most economical manner available. For this reason, most school districts will go out to bid when purchasing costly equipment or materials in bulk, usually exceeding $5,000.00. If a school is complying with the ISBE Purchasing Board’s recommendations, the school will not necessarily have to go out to bid on costly items. The civic responsibility has been taken over by the state, who is now responsible for negotiating the “best deal”. In this manner, it is possible for a corporation to monopolize the educational industry of an entire state. Among the computer companies that the ISBE Purchasing Board has made agreements with are Compaq and Dell. The options are extended far beyond these two companies when discussing software; the ISBE has made deals with CDW, Microwarehouse and Microsoft to name a few.
In school districts that can remain self- sufficient, the actions they take can be guided by what is more ethically sound or what is perceived by the community as most ethically sound. School district standards and board integrity become more and more meaningless as the lucrative stakes are raised and the needs of the district increase. School districts often look for options that allow them to remain “clean” as perceived by the community, options that are the easiest to defend in the eyes of the public, per se. These schools, because they are capable of negotiating and avoiding corporate manipulations through such temptations choose different means of acquiring the technology and supplies they need. Donations are always a “clean” means of acquiring materials, office supplies and used equipment without risking corporate manipulation. Open-ended contracts or limited terms within a contract allow a district to re-negotiate yearly or switch brand names regularly to avoid monopolization of the market. The negotiating flexibility allows conscientious school districts to negotiate for appropriateness. Certain school districts negotiate to avoid fringe benefits and create situations that are better for the school. Other school districts try to avoid the “sell out” perception they may be omitting by fundraising or allocating funds for particular items rather than feeling tied to a sponsoring corporation.
Although many times corporations agree to help a school district for the tax write off or simply for the advertisement, corporate motivation is a factor that many administrators regretfully overlook. Companies like Channel One, provide TVs, VCRs, cameras, videotapes and satellites to schools in exchange for only 12 minutes of class time a day to tap into the multi-billion dollar market within the adolescent market. The captive, impressionable audience viewing advertisements for a mere 20% of the twelve minutes a day proves to be a quite profitable industry for all those involved with Channel One. School boards and administration however are lured in by the prospective “free” equipment that they will receive. Certainly, the motivation behind the distribution of the equipment is the binding exposure to Channel One, an idea that ended up falling short of cost-efficient for the school and the taxpayers. It has been estimated “that Channel One cost taxpayers $1.8 billion annually in lost instructional time, including $300 million in class time lost to commercials.” And in return, the equipment total equates to much less than the taxpayers’ actual costs. (http://www.commercialexploitation.com/articles/congressional_briefing_vl.htm) Congressional Briefing -Commercialism in Schools Velma LaPoint, PhD Associate Professor, School of Education, Howard University
A major threat of corporate involvement within a school is the abundance of advertisement, a threat which is subsided by the over abundance of advertisements found naturally throughout a school. In addition to the advertisements that exist on the Internet, posters around the building, students’ apparel, text book material and technology brand names are covered by brand names and logos. Research has shown that high, intense amounts of such advertisements have led to: 1.) excessive materialistic values, attitudes, and behaviors that challenge student health and safety, 2.) Psychological and social pressure to conform and compete, 3.) Psychological Victimization (e.g., Teasing, Bullying) and 4.)Physical victimization (e.g., Locker Theft, Robbery, Fighting) ,trends that districts are putting many man hours in to eliminate. (http://www.commercialexploitation.com/articles/congressional_briefing_vl.htm) Congressional Briefing Commercialism in Schools, Velma LaPoint, PhD Associate Professor, School of Education, Howard University
So, what can schools do?
If a school or district is currently in a contract with a corporation, they are legally bound to uphold their end of the agreement. The best advice to all school districts is to investigate all aspects of the agreement before entering a contract with a corporation. Terms of the agreement that need to be considered:
III. Conclusion
In the present sea of confusion and underappreciation by Congress and state
legislatures of the seriousness of the issues raised by commercialization
in US public schools, school districts are largely having to chart their
own course forward, some sailing full speed ahead into the ports of trade
and commerce and others anchored out at sea, viewing the beckoning ports
with both interest and some deal of apprehension. In this final section,
the four authors from their reading and discussion hope to offer some guidance
to school districts in navigating their way forward, especially in dealing
with newer commercialization concerns raised by technology and the Internet.
With our varied professional backgrounds in education and personal perspectives, we have come to some agreement on a pragmatic and, we hope, realistic approach to the issue. Partnerships between public school districts and business are inevitable, given current budget crunches in public education and the hearty pro-business climate in many state governments and our national government. It is highly unlikely that such partnerships will ever be outlawed across the board (to the disappointment of many progressives). What is more likely is that legislatures will face (and have already faced) pressure by concerned parents and educators to clarify the bounds of acceptability of such partnerships, responding to and outlawing the most flagrant attempts at exploiting the youth audience held captive in US schools.
None of the authors of this paper considers her- or himself anti-business, yet we all weigh that against the educational needs of our students and schools, our first priority as educators. In our best-case scenario, public schools will enter only into healthy and non-exploitative partnerships with suitable corporations that have a strong sense of corporate citizenship and community responsibility. In the technology field, such partnerships have been frequent and mutually beneficial. We recognize, however, that there are other, less optimal scenarios where school districts are presented on a daily basis with less optimal partnerships under less optimal conditions for education. It is away from such treacherous waters that the four authors hope to steer well-meaning district policy makers via the guidelines listed below. We first offer a list of general principles that should be considered in contracts between school districts and any type of business, technology or non-, followed by a technology-specific list of guidelines that deals with issues such as technology grants from corporations, Web advertising, Web cookies, and other issues raised by the Internet in schools.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS – AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
Since individual schools in a district may some day find themselves ethically opposed to a commercial decision made at district level, and since it is up to individual schools to comply with all district decisions, the right time to deal with these disagreements is before contracts are entered into not after. Individual schools need to get in on the process early and make their voices heard or face an unnecessary ethical dilemma after the contract has been signed: comply with the district against one’s conscience or disobey.
Prior to negotiations with any for-profit group, school districts should select a panel of delegates representing each of the district's schools, local PTA groups, parents, and concerned community members. These parties should all be involved in the decision-making process before any contract is signed between the district and outside businesses. (Awarding stealth contracts without community participation is both unethical and is liable to stir up a political hornets nest!)
2. WHAT A COMPANY DOES MATTERS
Would the parents in your district prefer a school partnership with Apple Computers or Philip Morris (now Altria)? How about Xerox or Carter-Wallace (manufacturer of Trojan condoms)? Districts should avoid partnerships with companies whose main product line is incompatible with their students’ age, community values, political and religious neutrality, and good health. A good guideline would be whether the company’s stock is one that “socially conscious” investment funds would buy. They usually stay clear of tobacco, alcohol, defense/arms companies, big oil, etc. So should school districts. Fast food and junk food companies are also fast joining the ranks of these social pariahs, making partnerships with Pepsi something to be wary of. (Think lawsuits in five years!)
3. MOTIVES MATTER
Why is a particular company interested in a relationship with your school district? Acceptable motives, we think, include public service, good public relations, corporate citizenship, tax relief. Unacceptable motives include (a) ensuring a captive youth audience for sales pitches via TV, curricular material, or Web content and (b) gathering data on youth consumption habits and Web behavior. Neutral motives include developing loyal customers for the future, as Apple has successfully done. (Some ethicists object to this.) Do some homework on other school partnerships this company has had and what its reputation is. Who benefited the most: the school or the company?
4. LOCAL IS BETTER
Given a choice between signing a contract with (a) a large, faceless out-of-town corporation that has no stake in the community and little responsibility for the failure or success of the partnership and (b) a local business that does, choose local. If an out-of-town, out-of-state entity does approach your district wanting to deal, why not take the other offer and approach a similar local business and offer to deal with them instead? (On the other hand, many smaller communities have little or no local technology industry. In such a case, their school district may benefit from technology partnerships with reputable firms from farther away.)
5. CONTRACTS SHOULD NOT BE FOR TOO LONG A TERM
Budget crunch days in state government may well end, but your district may be stuck with an unfavorable contract with an outside business years after you need the funding. Keep the term of the contract short – one or two years!
6. OVER-DEPENDENCE ON ONE PARTNER FOR FUNDING
The technology industry goes through boom and bust periods. A business partner may go out of business, leaving your school district underfunded. Maintaining multiple sources of funding provides the safety of diversification and gives one company less leverage over your district’s educational decisions.
7. BUILDING EVALUATION INTO THE CONTRACT
What is advertised is too often, sadly, different than what is delivered. Your district enters a business partnership with certain objectives in mind. You need to know if these objectives are being met. Evaluation at each step is vital. Add this into contract, since you are contracting for a specific result or product. If not satisfied, do you have an escape?
8. THE CURRICULUM BELONGS TO YOU
A district should never enter any deal in which a business seeks to influence the content of your curriculum – either through donations of hard-copy materials (books, pamphlets, work sheets) or online materials prepared by the company. Such content is rarely neutral and often is a cover for stealth advertising in which companies push their products and services to students under the guise of “instruction”. Simple solution: don’t.
Rejecting such content is easiest if the company’s main product is other than education (cigarettes, soft drinks) and the product pitches more obvious, but the issue is more subtle if the company’s main product is education: e-learning or distance education, for example. Be sure that the company is up front about any secondary deals they may have with other corporate (or political or religious) interests on the side which might affect the instructional content they provide. This cross-fertilization is insidious and hard to spot without a thorough investigation of their materials. Textbooks have been known to feature “product placement,” with an innocent-looking picture of smiling students – upon closer examination – holding bottles of Mountain Dew, for example. (Online instructional materials are likewise not protected from such manipulative advertising.)
9. ADVERTISING IN SCHOOLS
Ads in schools are OK, we have decided, as long as students aren't required by the contract to look at them or view them and the ads are appropriate for and feature products appropriate for the students’ age. However, districts should reserve the right to preview and approve all advertisements prior to use in schools, and they should be in public places unconnected with instructional materials. (No ads in texts, worksheets, etc.)
10. PERKS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Many companies offer school district managers “fringe benefits” such as sports tickets as negotiating tools. It is hard to justify acceptance of such items according to professional educational ethics. It is therefore recommended to all school districts not to accept such perks. We feel they are acceptable only when used as educational incentives for students (e.g. prizes to students for academic success). Many district codes of ethics should already regulate such offers.
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
11. CORPORATE TECH GRANTS – WHO’S REALLY BENEFITTING?
Corporate tech grants can be a wonderful contribution to financially strapped school systems. But they can limit your students in unacceptable ways. An all-Apple school, for example, may function very well within its walls, but in the workplace, most students will be expected to have a comfort level with Microsoft Windows, the platform at the overwhelming majority of businesses. A multi-platform school would be ideal for students’ technology competencies. Exclusive contracts for small-market-share technologies should be avoided, but open contracts that allow for, say, Apple hardware alongside competing platforms is desirable.
12. FLY-BY-NIGHT VS. LONG-TERM RELTIONSHIPS
Beware of contracts in which a business ‘dumps’ equipment on your district and then contractually “washes its hands.” There are other, better partnerships available. Both Intel and IBM, for example, enter into on-going mentoring partnerships with the schools they aid technically – by distance, if necessary, through e-mentors. In contracts, districts should seek to include ongoing tech help from the donor company in any technology contract, and, ideally, training for staff and teachers. Maintain a relationship with the company after the computers/software packets have been delivered!
13. WEB ADVERTISING AND YOUR CORPORATE PARTNERS
The Web has proved to be very fertile ground for innovations in marketing to customers. Banner ads, pop-up ads, pop-behind ads, quiz teasers, etc. have all been tried. The more subtle the pitch, however, the more likely younger students are to fall for it unawares.
Companies with whom you are in partnership have a great responsibility not to exploit such students’ naïveté. To avoid such exploitation, contracts with businesses should never require school browsers to open to a corporate webpage or portal sponsored by a for-profit company. And any content pages contractually used by students should be ad-free. (A corporate logo or sponsorship line on a webpage may be acceptable to some, however). Likewise, any media streaming provided by a commercial partner (via TV or the Web) should not have required, unavoidable viewing of ads. Channel One really oversteps the line here in requiring students to watch 2 minutes of advertising along with news content.
14. WEB “COOKIES” – THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
Nearly any commercial or professionally-produced non-profit website these days trades some data information about site visitors – either to count the number of “hits” on the site, which ads a user has clicked while on the page, etc. These transactions are handled by small computer programs called “cookies” that may be sent over the network to a user’s computer and then often stored there indefinitely without the user’s knowledge. Many such cookies are harmless and save repeat visitors time by instantly completing access protocols that may have been done the long-way on the first visit. But other cookies` are more insidious. Beware of “Trojan horse” cookies that sit in school computers and track student Web activity or collect other data without the student’s (and teacher’s) knowledge.
In any contract involving donated tech equipment or contractual use of the partner’s website, a district should stipulate that all company cookies liable to be encountered and downloaded by its students must be declared fully in the company’s proposal and that the purpose of each cookie should be explained in ordinary language.
A competent district technology coordinator should be able to set up a fire wall on student computers to catch most inappropriate cookies and to configure a browser to allow appropriate cookies, but “forewarned is forearmed.”
15. TEACHER TECHNOLOGY TRAINING AND COMMERCIALIZATON
No school district needs teachers who are technology smart and ethics dumb or naïve about new technologies that exploit students. Teachers need to be aware of all potential risks to their students – not just from pornography. Teachers should be explicitly trained in the types of advertising and commercialization their students are likely to encounter on the Web and how to train them to be savvy consumers and Web surfers.
16. STUDENT TECH TRAINING AND INCIDENTAL WEB ADVERTISING
If your students are given access to the World Wide Web, they are guaranteed to come across banner ads, etc. during the course of their browsing. At the same time as they are introduced to that chaotic forum, your students should simultaneously be trained in how to deal with such advertising (to refrain from clicking on or near ads) and to safely avoid more stealthy forms of child-bait marketing such as quizzes that lead to commercial sites, attractive animated click games that lead to ads, on-line forms from companies that ask for personal information, etc. (The exact nature of these tactics will change as the Web grows, so keep abreast of Web advertising!)
BACK TO TOP
APPENDICES
ACTIVISM / ADVOCACY
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
• US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
Click on "Legislation & Records" to look up topics and specific Senate bills. It also lists email and snail mail addresses of state senators.
• US House of Representatives site: http://www.house.gov/
Click on "Find a Bill or Law" at right to look up topics and specific House bills. The site also lists email and snail mail address of state representatives.
• US Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/index.jsp
Click on "policy" at top right to view past and current legislation related to education
ADVOCACY GROUPS ON COMMERCIALIZATION
• Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU) at Arizona State U.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/ceru.htm
• Zillions Education Center of Consumers Union.
• CACE?
• Center for Commercial-Free Public Education (California)
• Commercial Alert - a non-profit group opposed to school advertising
• Consumer Union Education Services (CUES)
• The Illinois State Board of Education
• National Parent Teacher Association
• National Education Association
• National Conference of State Legislatures and lobby group in DC for all 50 state governments. In education, they try to get more federal aid. (Education-related Legislative Tracking Database):
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/educ_leg.cfm
• Obligation (Alabama) watchdog group
ORIGINAL SOURCES
• US govt. report (2000) by the GAO (General Accounting Office) "Public
Education: Commercial Activities in Schools,"
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00156.pdf
• Enhancing Children Through Technology Act of 2001
• Digital High School Education Technology Grant Act of 1997
• Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) http://www.ifea.net/cipa.html
• Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA):
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/fpco/ferpa/index.html
• COMMERCIAL INROADS IN US SCHOOLS (Tech and non-tech)
• Education Marketing Resources and Kidsay marketing tool, school staff and parents "benefit" in the form of money and incentives and that students learn from the experience.
• RStar (formerly named ZapMe!) -a company which offered to provide schools with free computers and internet connections in return for right to "zap" students with banner ads, now out of the education market due to public pressure
• N2H2, company provides computer equipment in return for rights to target a school’s students with advertising.
• Channel One, by Primedia - a classroom TV station by a for-profit corporation now in over 12,000 US schools. In addition to providing audio-visual equipment and news programming, the program requires students at participating schools to watch TV ads that cost more per minute than Saturday-morning children’s programs!
• DirecTV, announced in May it would give educational programming to up to 50,000 K-12 schools and outfit 2,000 schools in low-income areas with satellite dishes and other equipment needed to access the programming. Gina Magee, senior manager of public relations for
DirecTV, said the company started the initiative, called "DirecTV Goes to School," for philanthropic reasons and did not expect it to be a direct revenue source. However, most of the 65 channels in DirecTV’s school choice package include commercial advertising.
• CNN Student News, which airs in high school classrooms, now commercial-free, but CNN attempted at one point to include commercials.
• Edison Schools - . The nation’s largest for-profit education management corporation
• Field Trip Factory (www.fieldtripfactory.com) - provides schools free field trips to commercial establishments such as pet stores in the name of teaching about academic subjects such as "animal welfare."
• Academy of Reading
• Sylvan, e-learning
• Youth News Network (YNN)
• Pizza Hut Learning Units
• Imperial Oil Conservation (Canada?)
• Collage’s Nutrition Guides
• NetworkNext - provide free mobile computer equipment to present
Internet or PowerPoint presentations that would carry "dicreet" advertising
messages along with lecture content.
• Proctor & Gamble - Household Management
• Nutrasweet -Nutrition
• McMillan Bloedell Forest Management
• Kids World magazine
• Classroom Connections
• Think.com - . Oracle Corp. updated its Think.com web service, which offers schools and students an advertising-free web site used for communication, web page hosting and creation, and group collaboration on projects
• Kid$ense, by Nuveen Investments - a web site billed as helping children learn more about money, which it promoted through elementary schools.
BACK TO TOP
REFERENCES
Callister, T. A. & Burbules, N. C. 2003. Be careful what you ask for: Paradoxes about the "Digital Divide.
<http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/ncb/papers/aesa3.html>
Dobbs, L. (July 29, 2003). Lou Dobbs Tonight: Selling America. New York: CNN
Dunne, D. W. 2000. "Peddling Products to Kids in School on the Rise." Education World.
<http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues124.shtml>
Molnar, A. (1998, August). Sponsored schools and commercialized classrooms: Schoolhouse commercializing trends in the 1990's. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Molnar, A. 2002. "What’s in a name? The corporate branding of America’s schools." EPSL-0209-103-CERU.
<http://asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Annualreports/EPSL-0209-103-CERU.rtf>
Molnar, A. & Reaves, J. 2001. "Buy me! Buy me!" EPSL-0109- -CERU.
<http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/CERU_2001_Annual_Report.htm>
Ralph Nader, is a group that opposes commercialization in schools:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/oct/schools/
Starr, L. 1998. "From Billboard to Chalkboard: Advertising Creeps Into the
Classroom." Education World.
<http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin056.shtml>
Taylor, S. "Advertising in the classroom." Homefamily.net.
<http://www.homefamily.net/consumer/advertising_in_schools.htm>
Zoldan, D. 1998. "Soft drink makers are shelling out to promote drinks in local schools." Naples Daily News.
<http://www.naplesnews.com/today/marco/a89013k.htm>
Citizens campaign for commercial free schools:
http://www.scn.org/cccs/resource.html
Cash-strapped schools look for sponsors. Some say commercialization of
education goes too far. August 15, 2002 Posted: 2:43 PM EDT (1843 GMT):
http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/08/15/school.sponsors.ap/
Selling America's Kids:
Commercial Pressures on Kids of the 90's http://www.consumersunion.org/other/sellingkids/index.htm
BACK TO TOP
I.a. Commercialization in education and budget realitiesII. Commercialization and Technology Partnership
I.b. Types of commercialization
II.a. Kinds of corporate involvementIII. Conclusion
II.b.1. Philosophical and ethical positions
II.b.2. Political and legal situation
II.c. Schools’ responses to commercialization
IV. Appendices
V. References
I. Introduction
Someone somewhere out there is aiming to sell something to your grade-school students. It might be a technology company trying to hook students on a new computer-based video game or a non-tech soft drink company trying to sell them Coke products from school vending machines. And these companies are sharing tips with each other, such as at the "In-School Marketing ‘99" conference. "Marketers have come to realize that all roads eventually lead to the schools," Ed Winter, co-founder of Channel One, has said.
I.a. Commercialization in education and budget realities
This phenomenon of "commercialization" or "commercialism", making awkward bedfellows of non-profit schools and for-profit corporations, is not a complete stranger to US public schools, which since at least 1890 have led fund drives in "welcomed partnership" with candy companies to sell chocolate bars, for example (the profit from which partly returns to the company) and collected proofs of purchase labels from cereal boxes for school supplies. But with the almost universal wiring of US public schools for the internet in the 1990s, the potential reach of commerce and advertising into schools has increased exponentially. As Callister and Burbules (2003) have written:
"An increase in the amount of time students have access to the Internet comes with a worrisome increase in commercialization, surveillance, and loss of privacy. For the sake of education, we potentially serve up our students to those who would exploit them commercially and sometimes personally."
The "information superhighway", it turns out, is a two-way street leading not only out of the schools, helping to broaden students’ minds, but also into them, bringing in not only pornographic websites, but a flood of advertising and thinly-disguised marketing schemes aimed at children.
There are, unfortunately, solid economic reasons why so many schools have been forced to turn to corporations for funding and donated materials. State education budgets for education have declined steeply since the dot-com implosion in 2000 and the economic recession. According to David Shreve, education lobbyist for the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), "primary education already account[s] for 35 percent to 70 percent of state budgets," budgets that have shrunk due to decreasing taxes and assistance from the federal government. Higher education has been especially hard hit. NCSL also claims in a study that 31 of the 43 states that had finalized their 2004 budgets had cut spending, with few raising taxes to compensate, and a whopping 48 state budgets are currently in the red (Reuters. "Education law tries thin state budgets." July 31, 2003). Illinois lawmakers, on the other hand, have largely tried to spare the state’s K-12 budget for 2004, even increasing the state’s per-pupil payment, while cutting many other sectors, including higher education.
BACK TO TOP
I.b. Types of commercialization
Commercial involvement in schools is very widespread. Corporate involvement includes both technical and non-technical sponsorship. Non-technical sponsorship is probably the largest type of involvement at this point. It includes the following examples to name a few.
Large corporations such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Co have exclusive contracts with many schools. In return for only offering their products in the schools or districts, they donate money or other items such as scoreboards. Vernon Hills in suburban Chicago made a deal with paint-maker Rust-Oleum, to have their football stadium sponsored by the company. Many lunchrooms have corporate food sponsors. Target Stores will donate cash to schools if patrons use their credit card and have signed up do have funds donated. Some school districts have even have credit cards, Visa or Mastercard, that you can apply for and a percentage of the purchases go to the district.
Smaller types of commercialism include programs often run by volunteer organizations in the schools such as Parent Teacher Organizations. They include things like collecting Campbell’s Soup label or General Mills box tops which can be turned in to earn money or free products. Schwanns, a frozen food home delivery company, also donates funds to schools when families have signed up with the company and purchase their items. Some schools sell coupon books or buy cards that include various discounts at local stores or restaurants. Pizza-hut and Six flags also sponsor reading programs in which they award free pizza and Great America tickets to kids for meeting certain reading goals. The students can then use the tickets. However, other family members must purchase theirs.
Chicago Public schools currently engages in corporately sponsored programs such as Coca-Cola’s Attendance program and Pizza Hut’s Book-it program. Schools’ cooperation in these programs is sometimes optional, although the school board encourages it. These programs are on another branch of commercialism than traditional ads in school because they offer their products as incentives for students. Some schools offer fund raisers, and these can include selling candy and nuts to selling taffy apples to benefit the Pre-K program. Chicago Public schools does not allow advertisements, and does not use services such as those supplied by Channel One.
Even public universities, such as the University of Illinois and other land-grant institutions, are not immune to commercialism. The U of I, for instance, is now officially a "Coca Cola school," with that company having sole rights to the vending machine sales of soft drinks. And the board of trustees has actively sought out investment and research presence by major corporations such as Motorola, which is sure to have an influence on the direction student and departmental research takes. Major computer corporations (e.g. Sun Microsystems) also fund graduate researchers in the U of I’s famed electrical engineering department.
BACK TO TOP
II. Commercialization and Technology Partnership
II.a. Kinds of corporate involvement
Commercialization in schools has become a hotly debated topic over the past decade. There can be benefits and downfalls for both the schools and the corporations. To get a better understanding of how this issue unfolds, we must first look at the companies and brand names who are involved with schools. Computers and technology can be very expensive for a school to obtain. Computer companies realize this. Many, like Apple, Dell, Acer, and IBM have donated hardware or funds to schools. Other companies have contributed other technology tools. Channel One provides schools with free VCRs, and TVs. Some companies who provide money for schools to use at their discretion (possibly for technology needs) are General Mills, and Campbell’s. Still other companies like Coca-Cola and Pizza-Hut offer their products as an incentive for work well done, or excellent attendance. The Chicago White Sox baseball team offers free tickets to exemplary grade school children. Some companies are more removed from schools, selling coupon books through the PTA or offering their products through fund raising efforts. In a number of communities, the local Ford and GM Dealerships provide driver’s education cars through a deal with the school.
Why might a company invest in a school? The reasons are numerous. The easiest reason to see might be the fact that students are consumers too. According to CNN’s Lou Dobbs, it is estimated that teenagers and kids spend about $300 on “stuff”. This translates to market worth about $170 billion. Not only do young people spend their money, they spend their parents’ money as well. Kids sometimes have a say in what their parents buy at the grocery store, or what shoes they will wear to school. Students are also “future-consumers”. They will soon be growing up and using their own money to buy products. This is an important future market. Here is where brand loyalty also comes into play. Getting students hooked on a brand of a certain soft drink while they are young will ensure companies a lifetime of sales from that individual. Sometimes companies are simply looking for another location to sell their product. If we look at the soft drink example, we can find that many school districts have soda machines in their lunch areas. They are already making money selling their product right there in the school! An underlying and sneaky reason for a company to offer goods to a school is for their own benefit. Some companies offer free computers to schools in exchange for the right to track students’ whereabouts on the Internet or collect addresses by using “cookies”. Sometimes students do not even know they are being watched. The company keeps track of this data and uses it for it’s own benefit. One final shifty reason that businesses might choose to give money or goods to schools is because they see that schools are growing, and funds are shrinking. They know that federal budgets can not pay for these large schools, and neither can taxpayers. They feel that eventually, the businesses will end up paying out larger taxes so that schools can be financed. In order to avoid this, companies can begin to give back to schools now. Perhaps if donations were begun earlier, there might never be a tax crisis as mentioned.
Whatever the reason, brand names are seeping into schools. Companies push all kinds of products on students. The most noticeable are the soft drink machines. They make the product readily available. Coke is one of the biggest names in school advertisements, and they are able to get their product right into schools. Some other companies put their products in schools in different ways. Companies put their names on athletic apparel worn by school athletes. An athletic shoe company might make athletic shoes with their symbol on them and market them to cheerleaders. When the cheerleaders wear the shoes as their uniforms, the company logo is displayed. Or companies might bid to supply team uniforms, and place their logo on the sleeve. Another “item” companies may try to sell is entertainment. Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox have been known to advertise in schools through Channel One. Students might see movie previews through these commercials. Students may also find ads for games or toys in these commercials. It makes sense for toy corporations to advertise during cartoons, why not on through a program that targets kids in schools? In the example where Ford and GM donate or practically donate cars, it’s obvious they are looking to get their product out to first time drivers, most of who will buy a car sooner or later.
In order to sell their products, companies have some interesting ways of marketing them in schools. With regard to technology, computer and audiovisual companies often donate computers or other equipment, or offer it at sensationally low prices. If a student becomes comfortable with an IBM computer that he used in school, he is likely to buy and IBM in the future. In some cases, technology companies will donate scoreboards, cameras or stopwatches for school use. Some Internet service provider companies will offer discounted or free web access to a school, provided they use it for a certain amount of time each day. Frequently, deals like this one also come with tracking software, or built-in advertisements. Businesses can also donate software or computer games with advertisements in the software or corporate logos in the games. There are many other ways companies advertise in schools with no benefit to technology. They sell their product at the school (soda machines), they sponsor awards programs, and they use schools as a place to distribute samples of their products. Some large companies like Campbell’s offer rewards to schools for buying their product. Some do just the opposite, offer their product as a reward for scholastic achievement. Companies have been known to sponsor teacher training and provide worksheets and lesson plans involving their products. M&M’s and Skittles have become popular math manipulatives, complete with lesson plans on how to use them. Perhaps the fairest way that companies advertise in schools is by buying the right. Companies bid on exclusive contracts with school districts to supply them with computers, copy paper, consulting, anything a school district might need. An example of an exclusive contract is the one that Chicago Public Schools has with computer consulting company, Sentinel. This company is the only computer consulting company the district works with. The district chose this company based on their bid.
It’s obvious to say that schools can benefit from letting companies and their advertisements in. Schools can reel in thousands and thousands of dollars in material benefits and money from their corporate partners. Schools gain recent hardware and updated software. They receive new team uniforms. Sometimes administrators and high ranking teachers receive special fringe benefits or perks to sway them into buying a certain product for their school. Oftentimes, schools are simply given money. They spend this money on anything from scanners to library books. Schools can also use corporate sponsorships in other ways. PTAs can use companies’ goods for fundraising ventures. Administrators and teachers can use free products to motivate students. Sometimes computer or technology companies may offer free Internet access. From exclusive contracts, schools can receive the opportunity to buy products at discount prices. These are all ways that the school can benefit from a commercial contract. All of these benefits are one reason that schools continue to welcome businesses relationships. There are other reasons as well.
Many schools agree that enrollment is increasing every year. Teachers have bigger class sizes, and administrators struggle to fit everyone in the building. This increased enrollment trend means that schools will need more money. They need it now, and they will need it in the future. Accepting money from corporations is an easy way for schools to get the money they need. In addition to high enrollment, schools face a considerable shrinkage of available funds. Tight budgets become tighter, and activities and programs need to be cut. Schools need to find money to pay for programs they worked hard to establish. Perhaps the knowing factor is that schools feel a great amount of pressure to stay current in technology. Technology changes weekly, and schools struggle to keep up with this pace. Computers need to be replaced in a few years, and who is going to pay for that? Software becomes dated, and should be replaced. No school wants to have old news. This is the main reason schools attach to computer companies. They need technology resources.
As long as companies continue to pass out money to schools, they will keep taking it. The schools can see all the benefits they have, and now that they have them, it will be hard to give them up. Currently, corporate sponsors have a place in education. Schools benefit from their products by offering a little of what they have. Perhaps it makes good business sense for all involved to continue the relationship.
BACK TO TOP
II.b.1. Philosophical and ethical positions
What philosophies are there when talking about commercialization in our public school? There seem to be many view points, ranging from having absolutely no commercialization in our schools, to having unlimited commercialization.
Several groups, such as the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education exist. These organizations try to act as watch groups for public education and the children involved. Many contend that there should be no commercialization in public schools. By bringing in corporations and commercialization, we are doing a disservice to our children.
We are exposing them to advertising in an environment that should be free from commercial involvement. Schools should be a safe place that promotes learning, and not yet another place for the corporate giants to influence children.
This view would lead some to argue that this “safe” environment, free from commercialization in not practical. Even the clothes children where to school, reflect commercialization. The textbooks they use now have pictures that contain advertisements. In order to achieve the commercial free school, districts would need to require strict dress codes and in some cases, use no textbooks. The commercial free school would require outside help from the state and federal level to regulate advertisements in textbooks and other curricular material.
At the other end of the pendulum are those who believe that there should be no regulation in the area of commercializing our schools. In a broad sense they believe “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware. In this case, the buyer would be the students, staff and communities of the school. If corporations are willing to donate money to school districts, those with this view say, “take it.” They are not concerned about any lasting influence that may occur. They may even argue that there is no proof this commercialization has any long-term negative effects on the schools and children; never mind that there has not been enough time to really study long-term effects.
In the middle, there is a large gamut of philosophies related to the commercialization of our school. Many groups and individuals take the view that commercialization is okay as long as it is controlled. If you pick and choose what sort of commercialization or corporate sponsorship you allow in schools, then it is okay. Some, such as a group that met at the University of
Wisconsin—Milwaukee in 1990, have come up with guidelines to use in determining whether or not schools should enter into partnerships with businesses. Their list included:
- Corporation involvement will not require students to observe, listen to, or read commercial advertising
- Selling or providing access to a captive audience in the classroom for commercial purposes is exploitation and a violation of public trust
- Since school property and time are publicly funded, selling or providing free access to advertising on school property outside the classroom involves ethical and legal issues that must be addressed.
- Corporate involvement must support the goals and objectives of the schools. Curriculum and instruction are within the purview of educators.
- Programs of corporate involvement must be structured to meet an identified education need, not a commercial motive, and must be evaluated for educational effectiveness by the school or district on an ongoing basis
- Schools and educators should hold sponsored and donated materials to the same standards used for the selection and purchase of the curriculum materials
- Corporate involvement programs should not limit the discretion of schools and teachers in the use of sponsored materials
- Sponsor recognition and corporate logos should be for identification rather than commercial purposes (Molnar, 1996, pp. 185–186).
BACK TO TOP
II.b.2. Political and legal situation
While corporations are keenly aware of the vast market potential of public schools and what their competitors are doing in that sphere, the awareness does not work equally the other way. Parents, teachers, local school administrators, even educational journals, on the one hand, and local, state and federal lawmakers, on the other, are at best confused and at worst unaware of the steady growth of commercialization in schools.
It is instructive that the powerful "Education-Related Legislative Tracking Database" on the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures has no listing for "commercialization" or "business" or "for-profit" as "issue areas," whereas it does allow searches on issues such as "patriotism", "prayer and moment of silence", "before- and after-school programs" and "technology." Even a search of "technology", however, points out few connections between business and the Internet in schools. State legislatures, obviously, have yet to feel the full impact of corporate inroads into public education.
According to the US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on commercial activities in schools (2000), only "19 states currently have statutes or regulations that address school-related commercial activities."
FEDERAL LEVEL
The US government has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of technology in public education. Witness the personal visits of former president Clinton and Vice-president Al Gore to schools in the 1990’s to help wire schools for internet connection. This support has been mainly uncritical, however, seeing the "digital divide" as a simple injustice solved simply through increased technology spending and hardware.
Past congressional legislation dealing with technology and/or student rights in schools has included major acts such as:
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) the "privacy" spoken of here relates only to educational records and not to wider definitions of privacy, including privacy from online tracking, electronic marketing, etc.
Digital High School Education Technology Grant Act of 1997 - which aims to provide high school students with basic computer skills so they can improve their academic performance. Basically, this provides federal money to give computers and training to HS students. No legislation of the rights of high school students
Enhancing Children Through Technology Act of 2001, which provides funding to improve academic achievement through technology in elementary schools and secondary schools (but not middle school).
Senate Bill 192 seeks to create the "Education Technology Grant Program of 2002" to provide technology education grants for grades 4-8, to make up for this oversight). Basically, this provides federal money to give computers and training to elementary and high school students.
Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, challenged, and upheld by the Supreme Court June 2003 Ð while it does deal with a real threat of pornographic materials, obscenity and other things "harmful to minors" on the web, ironically, does not explicitly seek to protect children from other kinds of internet threats: invasion and loss of privacy, unannounced tracking of web activity by corporations, and certainly not electronic marketing to children.
A check of current legislation in both houses of Congress, showed that federal lawmakers were still obsessed with hardware fixes, as in Senate bill S.196 "Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003" or House bill H. R. 599 "To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide grants to improve the infrastructure of elementary and secondary schools" by providing access to the "information superhighway." A search with the term "commercialization" or "commercialism" turned up no bill connected with education in either the House or the Senate.
However, there has been some attention within the huge Washington bureaucracy to the issue of marketers’ preying on school children. In September of 2000, the General Accounting Office, which conducts research on how government programs are working, investigated the situation in all 50 states and wrote up a report entitled "Public Education: Commercial Activities in Schools." Its findings have been reported in more detail in previous CTER papers on commercialization, but the gist of the report is that local policies on the issue appear largely ad hoc and diverge widely from state to state. Many have no written policy; some are friendly to business, and some not.
The lawmakers who instigated the GAO investigation, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CN) & Rep. George Miller (D-CA), followed up the study by pressing for passage of the Student Privacy Protection Act as an amendment to the ESSA. Their amendment would have required school districts to obtain parental permission before allowing children to give any information to marketers Ð online or in writing. In its latest 2003 incarnation H.R. 1848, however, the SPPA was whittled down to concern for the privacy of student records, not markedly different from the much older FERPA law. Any threats to business have been carefully excised by business-friendly house Republicans.
STATE LEVEL
As at the national level, state legislators have been enthusiastic about technology hardware and internet connections and more blase about restricting corporate collaboration with school districts. In 2001, only 19 states had laws explicitly controlling any form of commercial activity in public schools.
The opposite trend is also in evidence, however. Florida legislators voted in favor of a law creating an online shopping site to benefit schools: the Florida Education Shopping Mall. A 2002 Virginia state house law (HB755) authorizes school boards to sign contracts with private business to "establish, install, renovate, remodel, or construct satellite classrooms for grades kindergarten through three on a site owned by the business or industry and leased to the school board for free." The sweetener for business: they are exempt from private business license tax. The old saying "The business of America is business" applies equally in the 21st century!
LOCAL LEGISLATION AND SCHOOL BOARDS
Each of America’s 15,000 school districts, at the moment, has reacted to the perils and promise of corporate funding in their own way.
According to Alex Molnar of Arizona State’s Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU), school boards in Seattle, Los Angeles, and Madison, Wisconsin have voted to limit commercial activities such as banning exclusive agreements with soft drink companies, and in some cases, asking sponsors to remove or limit school advertising.
Meanwhile, many more school boards are actively seeking out corporate sponsor-ship. In one example, agreeing to rename their gymnasium after their corporate sponsors, as the Brooklawn, New Jersey school district recently did. And in 2000, the New York City Board of Education voted to create its own Internet service and a website that would carry corporate ads.
ADVOCACY GROUPS
In the US, there are many groups that have been involved in this issue, mainly on the anti-commercialization side, obviously, because the lack of legal guidelines at the federal and state level has made it open season on schools for American corporations. But many voices within the US public school system have come out equally forcefully in favor of commercial involvement in schools. Molnar goes so far as to describe the current internal debate between these two forces as a "battle". "At this point it is too early to predict an outcome in the battle over marketing in schools - the evidence suggests either side may win" (Molnar & Reaves
2001).
Yet the news is not entirely grim for the anti-commercialists. According to Molnar, a grassroots citizens movement in Seattle managed to get the school board to end N2H2’s efforts at marketing to students by forcing it to remove banner ads in return for free filtering service to "protect" students from pornography. Citizens groups were also successful in driving ZapMe! Out of the education market, a corporation that Ralph Nader called a "corporate predator" because it offered schools free computers in return for exclusive rights to bombard students with ads and collect consumer behavior profiles from student computer users.
In fact, some of the more blatant commercialization efforts are already beginning to infringe on existing laws. In Colorado, Channel One offered a $500 bonus to teachers who signed up new schools, but this was found to be in violation of state ethics laws, in which public employees, including teachers, "must not be engaged as counsel, consultant, representative or agent to a business they deal with in an official capacity."
As administrators and teachers "in the trenches" have little guidance from above and from federal and state lawmakers Ð the responsibility at the moment falls largely to each school and district to decide its own complex relationship with outside for-profit entities. This is not to say that educators at all levels should not at the same time become activists, writing their state and federal lawmakers to propose legislation defining clearer boundaries for commercialization in schools. Both tacks are necessary at present. As for an advocacy role for teachers and local administrators, there is strength in numbers, obviously, and many consumer and education advocacy groups exist with whom teachers can work (see appendix at end of this paper).
BACK TO TOP
II.c. Schools’ responses to commercialization
“Reduced funding for curriculum development and for the purchase of high-quality materials makes it more likely that school boards will enter into agreements that expose students to curricular materials that promote corporate interests.” (Public Education In the Public Sector- http://www.ctf-fce.ca/e/what/ni/public.htm) Many schools across the US have already entered into these types of agreements. Deals with Coke or Pepsi, magazine, textbook and computer companies are a few among the many corporate sponsors of educational materials. Criticized by the public, parent groups and even some students, many school boards are forced to confess that with limited resources and more desperate times, they must turn to any funding that becomes available, regardless of how desperate the measures.
Many corporate contracts are made between a particular school district and a corporation. Individual schools almost never have the capabilities to enter into a corporate negotiation independently or withdraw from a district contract. This factor alone gives the district a significant amount of negotiating abilities, a quality that is necessary amidst so many lucrative offers. In situations like Coke vs. Pepsi or food products, there are many angles to consider. For the most part such corporations will provide profit sharing, discounted products, materials like plates, cups, pens & pencils (with particular logo) under the condition that their product is exclusively sold within the district. Larger corporations lure the administration and board with incentives and fringe benefits, a practice that if spotted by the taxpayers may cause a significant amount of friction. More conscientious school districts will negotiate away from the personal incentives and toward a better deal, one that earns the school a larger symbol of their exclusive carrier- a scoreboard or menuboard. Many of these contributions are threatened by governmental policies that are being put in effect to protect the students. If the government passes bills to prevent the consumption of soft drinks, the schools will be forced to act accordingly, however the cost implications the district will incur is immeasurable.
Technological corporate contracts are different from other types of corporate contracts with the education industry. Technology contracts are usually set up by the state. The Illinois State Board of Education has negotiated educational discounts with multiple companies that will assist in increasing the technological capabilities of Illinois school districts. The boundaries of the negotiations were set by Governor Edgar to increase Internet access to students. For example, a school gets discounted TI lines through SBC Ameritec as long as it increases student Internet access. A TI line, therefore, that connects a series of schools in a district is not discounted by such an agreement. The diversity of the companies in agreement with the state purchasing board allows schools to opt which company they prefer to conduct business with.
By law, school districts have a judicial responsibility to spend tax payers’ money in the most economical manner available. For this reason, most school districts will go out to bid when purchasing costly equipment or materials in bulk, usually exceeding $5,000.00. If a school is complying with the ISBE Purchasing Board’s recommendations, the school will not necessarily have to go out to bid on costly items. The civic responsibility has been taken over by the state, who is now responsible for negotiating the “best deal”. In this manner, it is possible for a corporation to monopolize the educational industry of an entire state. Among the computer companies that the ISBE Purchasing Board has made agreements with are Compaq and Dell. The options are extended far beyond these two companies when discussing software; the ISBE has made deals with CDW, Microwarehouse and Microsoft to name a few.
In school districts that can remain self- sufficient, the actions they take can be guided by what is more ethically sound or what is perceived by the community as most ethically sound. School district standards and board integrity become more and more meaningless as the lucrative stakes are raised and the needs of the district increase. School districts often look for options that allow them to remain “clean” as perceived by the community, options that are the easiest to defend in the eyes of the public, per se. These schools, because they are capable of negotiating and avoiding corporate manipulations through such temptations choose different means of acquiring the technology and supplies they need. Donations are always a “clean” means of acquiring materials, office supplies and used equipment without risking corporate manipulation. Open-ended contracts or limited terms within a contract allow a district to re-negotiate yearly or switch brand names regularly to avoid monopolization of the market. The negotiating flexibility allows conscientious school districts to negotiate for appropriateness. Certain school districts negotiate to avoid fringe benefits and create situations that are better for the school. Other school districts try to avoid the “sell out” perception they may be omitting by fundraising or allocating funds for particular items rather than feeling tied to a sponsoring corporation.
Although many times corporations agree to help a school district for the tax write off or simply for the advertisement, corporate motivation is a factor that many administrators regretfully overlook. Companies like Channel One, provide TVs, VCRs, cameras, videotapes and satellites to schools in exchange for only 12 minutes of class time a day to tap into the multi-billion dollar market within the adolescent market. The captive, impressionable audience viewing advertisements for a mere 20% of the twelve minutes a day proves to be a quite profitable industry for all those involved with Channel One. School boards and administration however are lured in by the prospective “free” equipment that they will receive. Certainly, the motivation behind the distribution of the equipment is the binding exposure to Channel One, an idea that ended up falling short of cost-efficient for the school and the taxpayers. It has been estimated “that Channel One cost taxpayers $1.8 billion annually in lost instructional time, including $300 million in class time lost to commercials.” And in return, the equipment total equates to much less than the taxpayers’ actual costs. (http://www.commercialexploitation.com/articles/congressional_briefing_vl.htm) Congressional Briefing -Commercialism in Schools Velma LaPoint, PhD Associate Professor, School of Education, Howard University
A major threat of corporate involvement within a school is the abundance of advertisement, a threat which is subsided by the over abundance of advertisements found naturally throughout a school. In addition to the advertisements that exist on the Internet, posters around the building, students’ apparel, text book material and technology brand names are covered by brand names and logos. Research has shown that high, intense amounts of such advertisements have led to: 1.) excessive materialistic values, attitudes, and behaviors that challenge student health and safety, 2.) Psychological and social pressure to conform and compete, 3.) Psychological Victimization (e.g., Teasing, Bullying) and 4.)Physical victimization (e.g., Locker Theft, Robbery, Fighting) ,trends that districts are putting many man hours in to eliminate. (http://www.commercialexploitation.com/articles/congressional_briefing_vl.htm) Congressional Briefing Commercialism in Schools, Velma LaPoint, PhD Associate Professor, School of Education, Howard University
So, what can schools do?
If a school or district is currently in a contract with a corporation, they are legally bound to uphold their end of the agreement. The best advice to all school districts is to investigate all aspects of the agreement before entering a contract with a corporation. Terms of the agreement that need to be considered:
- What are all of the terms of the contract?
- What is the corporation’s motivation?
- What will your school’s responsibility be after accepting the materials?
- Are there any additional fringe benefits that can be negotiated?
- Is it possible for your school to negotiate a comparable deal with another company?
- What are the long-term benefits of said contract? What are the immediate benefits of said contract? Do the benefits, both short and long term, of the agreement aid in the progressing changes of your school district’s needs?
- Is this the most cost efficient way for you to spend your taxpayers’ money?
- What is the goal of the district and the community in this area of the district and does this contract assist in the meeting of those goals?
III. Conclusion
With our varied professional backgrounds in education and personal perspectives, we have come to some agreement on a pragmatic and, we hope, realistic approach to the issue. Partnerships between public school districts and business are inevitable, given current budget crunches in public education and the hearty pro-business climate in many state governments and our national government. It is highly unlikely that such partnerships will ever be outlawed across the board (to the disappointment of many progressives). What is more likely is that legislatures will face (and have already faced) pressure by concerned parents and educators to clarify the bounds of acceptability of such partnerships, responding to and outlawing the most flagrant attempts at exploiting the youth audience held captive in US schools.
None of the authors of this paper considers her- or himself anti-business, yet we all weigh that against the educational needs of our students and schools, our first priority as educators. In our best-case scenario, public schools will enter only into healthy and non-exploitative partnerships with suitable corporations that have a strong sense of corporate citizenship and community responsibility. In the technology field, such partnerships have been frequent and mutually beneficial. We recognize, however, that there are other, less optimal scenarios where school districts are presented on a daily basis with less optimal partnerships under less optimal conditions for education. It is away from such treacherous waters that the four authors hope to steer well-meaning district policy makers via the guidelines listed below. We first offer a list of general principles that should be considered in contracts between school districts and any type of business, technology or non-, followed by a technology-specific list of guidelines that deals with issues such as technology grants from corporations, Web advertising, Web cookies, and other issues raised by the Internet in schools.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS – AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
Since individual schools in a district may some day find themselves ethically opposed to a commercial decision made at district level, and since it is up to individual schools to comply with all district decisions, the right time to deal with these disagreements is before contracts are entered into not after. Individual schools need to get in on the process early and make their voices heard or face an unnecessary ethical dilemma after the contract has been signed: comply with the district against one’s conscience or disobey.
Prior to negotiations with any for-profit group, school districts should select a panel of delegates representing each of the district's schools, local PTA groups, parents, and concerned community members. These parties should all be involved in the decision-making process before any contract is signed between the district and outside businesses. (Awarding stealth contracts without community participation is both unethical and is liable to stir up a political hornets nest!)
2. WHAT A COMPANY DOES MATTERS
Would the parents in your district prefer a school partnership with Apple Computers or Philip Morris (now Altria)? How about Xerox or Carter-Wallace (manufacturer of Trojan condoms)? Districts should avoid partnerships with companies whose main product line is incompatible with their students’ age, community values, political and religious neutrality, and good health. A good guideline would be whether the company’s stock is one that “socially conscious” investment funds would buy. They usually stay clear of tobacco, alcohol, defense/arms companies, big oil, etc. So should school districts. Fast food and junk food companies are also fast joining the ranks of these social pariahs, making partnerships with Pepsi something to be wary of. (Think lawsuits in five years!)
3. MOTIVES MATTER
Why is a particular company interested in a relationship with your school district? Acceptable motives, we think, include public service, good public relations, corporate citizenship, tax relief. Unacceptable motives include (a) ensuring a captive youth audience for sales pitches via TV, curricular material, or Web content and (b) gathering data on youth consumption habits and Web behavior. Neutral motives include developing loyal customers for the future, as Apple has successfully done. (Some ethicists object to this.) Do some homework on other school partnerships this company has had and what its reputation is. Who benefited the most: the school or the company?
4. LOCAL IS BETTER
Given a choice between signing a contract with (a) a large, faceless out-of-town corporation that has no stake in the community and little responsibility for the failure or success of the partnership and (b) a local business that does, choose local. If an out-of-town, out-of-state entity does approach your district wanting to deal, why not take the other offer and approach a similar local business and offer to deal with them instead? (On the other hand, many smaller communities have little or no local technology industry. In such a case, their school district may benefit from technology partnerships with reputable firms from farther away.)
5. CONTRACTS SHOULD NOT BE FOR TOO LONG A TERM
Budget crunch days in state government may well end, but your district may be stuck with an unfavorable contract with an outside business years after you need the funding. Keep the term of the contract short – one or two years!
6. OVER-DEPENDENCE ON ONE PARTNER FOR FUNDING
The technology industry goes through boom and bust periods. A business partner may go out of business, leaving your school district underfunded. Maintaining multiple sources of funding provides the safety of diversification and gives one company less leverage over your district’s educational decisions.
7. BUILDING EVALUATION INTO THE CONTRACT
What is advertised is too often, sadly, different than what is delivered. Your district enters a business partnership with certain objectives in mind. You need to know if these objectives are being met. Evaluation at each step is vital. Add this into contract, since you are contracting for a specific result or product. If not satisfied, do you have an escape?
8. THE CURRICULUM BELONGS TO YOU
A district should never enter any deal in which a business seeks to influence the content of your curriculum – either through donations of hard-copy materials (books, pamphlets, work sheets) or online materials prepared by the company. Such content is rarely neutral and often is a cover for stealth advertising in which companies push their products and services to students under the guise of “instruction”. Simple solution: don’t.
Rejecting such content is easiest if the company’s main product is other than education (cigarettes, soft drinks) and the product pitches more obvious, but the issue is more subtle if the company’s main product is education: e-learning or distance education, for example. Be sure that the company is up front about any secondary deals they may have with other corporate (or political or religious) interests on the side which might affect the instructional content they provide. This cross-fertilization is insidious and hard to spot without a thorough investigation of their materials. Textbooks have been known to feature “product placement,” with an innocent-looking picture of smiling students – upon closer examination – holding bottles of Mountain Dew, for example. (Online instructional materials are likewise not protected from such manipulative advertising.)
9. ADVERTISING IN SCHOOLS
Ads in schools are OK, we have decided, as long as students aren't required by the contract to look at them or view them and the ads are appropriate for and feature products appropriate for the students’ age. However, districts should reserve the right to preview and approve all advertisements prior to use in schools, and they should be in public places unconnected with instructional materials. (No ads in texts, worksheets, etc.)
10. PERKS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Many companies offer school district managers “fringe benefits” such as sports tickets as negotiating tools. It is hard to justify acceptance of such items according to professional educational ethics. It is therefore recommended to all school districts not to accept such perks. We feel they are acceptable only when used as educational incentives for students (e.g. prizes to students for academic success). Many district codes of ethics should already regulate such offers.
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
11. CORPORATE TECH GRANTS – WHO’S REALLY BENEFITTING?
Corporate tech grants can be a wonderful contribution to financially strapped school systems. But they can limit your students in unacceptable ways. An all-Apple school, for example, may function very well within its walls, but in the workplace, most students will be expected to have a comfort level with Microsoft Windows, the platform at the overwhelming majority of businesses. A multi-platform school would be ideal for students’ technology competencies. Exclusive contracts for small-market-share technologies should be avoided, but open contracts that allow for, say, Apple hardware alongside competing platforms is desirable.
12. FLY-BY-NIGHT VS. LONG-TERM RELTIONSHIPS
Beware of contracts in which a business ‘dumps’ equipment on your district and then contractually “washes its hands.” There are other, better partnerships available. Both Intel and IBM, for example, enter into on-going mentoring partnerships with the schools they aid technically – by distance, if necessary, through e-mentors. In contracts, districts should seek to include ongoing tech help from the donor company in any technology contract, and, ideally, training for staff and teachers. Maintain a relationship with the company after the computers/software packets have been delivered!
13. WEB ADVERTISING AND YOUR CORPORATE PARTNERS
The Web has proved to be very fertile ground for innovations in marketing to customers. Banner ads, pop-up ads, pop-behind ads, quiz teasers, etc. have all been tried. The more subtle the pitch, however, the more likely younger students are to fall for it unawares.
Companies with whom you are in partnership have a great responsibility not to exploit such students’ naïveté. To avoid such exploitation, contracts with businesses should never require school browsers to open to a corporate webpage or portal sponsored by a for-profit company. And any content pages contractually used by students should be ad-free. (A corporate logo or sponsorship line on a webpage may be acceptable to some, however). Likewise, any media streaming provided by a commercial partner (via TV or the Web) should not have required, unavoidable viewing of ads. Channel One really oversteps the line here in requiring students to watch 2 minutes of advertising along with news content.
14. WEB “COOKIES” – THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
Nearly any commercial or professionally-produced non-profit website these days trades some data information about site visitors – either to count the number of “hits” on the site, which ads a user has clicked while on the page, etc. These transactions are handled by small computer programs called “cookies” that may be sent over the network to a user’s computer and then often stored there indefinitely without the user’s knowledge. Many such cookies are harmless and save repeat visitors time by instantly completing access protocols that may have been done the long-way on the first visit. But other cookies` are more insidious. Beware of “Trojan horse” cookies that sit in school computers and track student Web activity or collect other data without the student’s (and teacher’s) knowledge.
In any contract involving donated tech equipment or contractual use of the partner’s website, a district should stipulate that all company cookies liable to be encountered and downloaded by its students must be declared fully in the company’s proposal and that the purpose of each cookie should be explained in ordinary language.
A competent district technology coordinator should be able to set up a fire wall on student computers to catch most inappropriate cookies and to configure a browser to allow appropriate cookies, but “forewarned is forearmed.”
15. TEACHER TECHNOLOGY TRAINING AND COMMERCIALIZATON
No school district needs teachers who are technology smart and ethics dumb or naïve about new technologies that exploit students. Teachers need to be aware of all potential risks to their students – not just from pornography. Teachers should be explicitly trained in the types of advertising and commercialization their students are likely to encounter on the Web and how to train them to be savvy consumers and Web surfers.
16. STUDENT TECH TRAINING AND INCIDENTAL WEB ADVERTISING
If your students are given access to the World Wide Web, they are guaranteed to come across banner ads, etc. during the course of their browsing. At the same time as they are introduced to that chaotic forum, your students should simultaneously be trained in how to deal with such advertising (to refrain from clicking on or near ads) and to safely avoid more stealthy forms of child-bait marketing such as quizzes that lead to commercial sites, attractive animated click games that lead to ads, on-line forms from companies that ask for personal information, etc. (The exact nature of these tactics will change as the Web grows, so keep abreast of Web advertising!)
BACK TO TOP
APPENDICES
ACTIVISM / ADVOCACY
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
• US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
Click on "Legislation & Records" to look up topics and specific Senate bills. It also lists email and snail mail addresses of state senators.
• US House of Representatives site: http://www.house.gov/
Click on "Find a Bill or Law" at right to look up topics and specific House bills. The site also lists email and snail mail address of state representatives.
• US Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/index.jsp
Click on "policy" at top right to view past and current legislation related to education
ADVOCACY GROUPS ON COMMERCIALIZATION
• Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU) at Arizona State U.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/ceru.htm
• Zillions Education Center of Consumers Union.
• CACE?
• Center for Commercial-Free Public Education (California)
• Commercial Alert - a non-profit group opposed to school advertising
• Consumer Union Education Services (CUES)
• The Illinois State Board of Education
• National Parent Teacher Association
• National Education Association
• National Conference of State Legislatures and lobby group in DC for all 50 state governments. In education, they try to get more federal aid. (Education-related Legislative Tracking Database):
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/educ_leg.cfm
• Obligation (Alabama) watchdog group
ORIGINAL SOURCES
• US govt. report (2000) by the GAO (General Accounting Office) "Public
Education: Commercial Activities in Schools,"
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00156.pdf
• Enhancing Children Through Technology Act of 2001
• Digital High School Education Technology Grant Act of 1997
• Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) http://www.ifea.net/cipa.html
• Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA):
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/fpco/ferpa/index.html
• COMMERCIAL INROADS IN US SCHOOLS (Tech and non-tech)
• Education Marketing Resources and Kidsay marketing tool, school staff and parents "benefit" in the form of money and incentives and that students learn from the experience.
• RStar (formerly named ZapMe!) -a company which offered to provide schools with free computers and internet connections in return for right to "zap" students with banner ads, now out of the education market due to public pressure
• N2H2, company provides computer equipment in return for rights to target a school’s students with advertising.
• Channel One, by Primedia - a classroom TV station by a for-profit corporation now in over 12,000 US schools. In addition to providing audio-visual equipment and news programming, the program requires students at participating schools to watch TV ads that cost more per minute than Saturday-morning children’s programs!
• DirecTV, announced in May it would give educational programming to up to 50,000 K-12 schools and outfit 2,000 schools in low-income areas with satellite dishes and other equipment needed to access the programming. Gina Magee, senior manager of public relations for
DirecTV, said the company started the initiative, called "DirecTV Goes to School," for philanthropic reasons and did not expect it to be a direct revenue source. However, most of the 65 channels in DirecTV’s school choice package include commercial advertising.
• CNN Student News, which airs in high school classrooms, now commercial-free, but CNN attempted at one point to include commercials.
• Edison Schools - . The nation’s largest for-profit education management corporation
• Field Trip Factory (www.fieldtripfactory.com) - provides schools free field trips to commercial establishments such as pet stores in the name of teaching about academic subjects such as "animal welfare."
• Academy of Reading
• Sylvan, e-learning
• Youth News Network (YNN)
• Pizza Hut Learning Units
• Imperial Oil Conservation (Canada?)
• Collage’s Nutrition Guides
• NetworkNext - provide free mobile computer equipment to present
Internet or PowerPoint presentations that would carry "dicreet" advertising
messages along with lecture content.
• Proctor & Gamble - Household Management
• Nutrasweet -Nutrition
• McMillan Bloedell Forest Management
• Kids World magazine
• Classroom Connections
• Think.com - . Oracle Corp. updated its Think.com web service, which offers schools and students an advertising-free web site used for communication, web page hosting and creation, and group collaboration on projects
• Kid$ense, by Nuveen Investments - a web site billed as helping children learn more about money, which it promoted through elementary schools.
BACK TO TOP
REFERENCES
Callister, T. A. & Burbules, N. C. 2003. Be careful what you ask for: Paradoxes about the "Digital Divide.
<http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/ncb/papers/aesa3.html>
Dobbs, L. (July 29, 2003). Lou Dobbs Tonight: Selling America. New York: CNN
Dunne, D. W. 2000. "Peddling Products to Kids in School on the Rise." Education World.
<http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues124.shtml>
Molnar, A. (1998, August). Sponsored schools and commercialized classrooms: Schoolhouse commercializing trends in the 1990's. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Molnar, A. 2002. "What’s in a name? The corporate branding of America’s schools." EPSL-0209-103-CERU.
<http://asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Annualreports/EPSL-0209-103-CERU.rtf>
Molnar, A. & Reaves, J. 2001. "Buy me! Buy me!" EPSL-0109- -CERU.
<http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/CERU_2001_Annual_Report.htm>
Ralph Nader, is a group that opposes commercialization in schools:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/oct/schools/
Starr, L. 1998. "From Billboard to Chalkboard: Advertising Creeps Into the
Classroom." Education World.
<http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin056.shtml>
Taylor, S. "Advertising in the classroom." Homefamily.net.
<http://www.homefamily.net/consumer/advertising_in_schools.htm>
Zoldan, D. 1998. "Soft drink makers are shelling out to promote drinks in local schools." Naples Daily News.
<http://www.naplesnews.com/today/marco/a89013k.htm>
Citizens campaign for commercial free schools:
http://www.scn.org/cccs/resource.html
Cash-strapped schools look for sponsors. Some say commercialization of
education goes too far. August 15, 2002 Posted: 2:43 PM EDT (1843 GMT):
http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/08/15/school.sponsors.ap/
Selling America's Kids:
Commercial Pressures on Kids of the 90's http://www.consumersunion.org/other/sellingkids/index.htm
BACK TO TOP