A little while back I read the book School Commercialism: From Democratic Ideal to Market Commodity (2005), in which author Alex Molnar outlines eight primary categories of school commercialism. Probably most everything that we look at will fall into one of these general categories, so here they are with examples when possible:
- sponsorship of programs and activities – This is when corporations pay money or subsidize activities or events in schools in exchange for associating their name with the activity. Corporate sponsored scholarships are also in this category. (Examples include The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation sponsors several schools in Dayton. Also, Coca-Cola offers a number of $20,000 and $10,000 scholarships to graduating seniors.)
- exclusive agreements – This is when schools and corporations make an agreement that gives a company exclusive rights to sell and promote their products within a school or district and the school gets a portion of the profits. (A basic, well-known example is when school district sign exclusive contracts to sell only Coca-Cola or Pepsi products.)
- incentive programs – Corporations offer money, products, or services to schools in exchange for student, family, or faculty involvement in a designated activity. (Examples include Pizza Hut’s Book It program.)
- appropriation of space – Corporations pay to advertise on school owned property – buildings, bulletin boards, buses, etc. (Example: Adcompany is a Dallas/Fort Worth company that puts ads on school buses.)
- sponsored educational materials – These are educational materials, generally provided for free, that include “educational content” but are produced and provided by corporations. (Example: Dole's 5 a Day program offers free lesson plans and curriculum material for teachers.)
- electronic marketing – Corporations provide electronic equipment or programming in exchange for the right to advertise to students. The best known example is Channel One.
- privatization – This is when school programs, or entire schools, are managed by private, for-profit companies. (Example: Edison Schools run a number of individual schools and entire districts around the nation.)
- fundraising – Corporations run programs that allow students, parents, or other members of the school community to sell products or services to raise money for the schools. (Example: SchoolFundraisers.com is a pretty typical fundraising company. I don't know about you, but I sold all sorts of wrapping paper, magazine subscriptions, and oranges as a kid...)
3 comments:
It seems that what ties many of these different categories together is that schools are turning to outside sources of funding in order to get the equipment (or ways to acquire equipment, as in selling billboard or access space) they need to educate their students. I'm not sure I see that as entirely bad, especially considering how poorly funded most public schools are.
At the same time, however, this practice raises the important question: Why are schools forced to cut deals with Coca-Cola or Twinkies? If they have billboard space on a baseball field, wouldn't it be better to use that for positive messages about reading or being good citizens? (Personally, I don't know how effective public advertising of any sort is, but if you're going to drop subconscious suggestions in kids' brains, it might as well be something educationally useful instead of "Drink Coke!" They can get that everywhere else.)
So, I may be simplifying this--I'm sure there are many other more complicated reasons why commercialization is increasing in schools as much as it is elsewhere--but if schools were properly funded by sources that wouldn't profit from funding them, then schools wouldn't be pressured to turn to the companies that do profit.
Hey B - No, you totally hit the nail on the head. School funding is a monsterously huge part of the problem. When teachers are faced with textbooks written by Exxon or no textbooks, what do you think they choose? In many situations you can't blame them for their choices.
Part of the fundamental problem is that we've got school funding backwards in this country. Under NCLB and all this accountability stuff, we pull money AWAY from poorly performing schools. Whereas, in other countries they view poor performance as a reason to put more money and aid INTO schools. (Who's system makes more sense to you?)
But the double edged sword to all this is that schools aren't always aided by these contracts that they are making with big corporations. For example, a number of school districts contracted with Coke ended up owing Coke money at the end of the deal because the schools didn't sell enough product to meet the expectations of the contracts. It's an evil, evil cycle.
Which is why resistance in whatever way is possible is so important. But ultimately, you are right in saying we need to change how we fund our schools.
Hey Kelly,
I feel strongly that market intervention in schools is getting out of hand- especially when we are letting McDonald's design nutrition curriculum. All I have to say is "duh". How can teachers and parents think this kind of intervention is fine or harmless? I don't think it is ever advisable to have the author of your child's curriculum also the person who is vested in them consuming junk (both physically and intellectually). Down with corporate sponsorship!
Of course, how are we to tell schools to get by without it? We, the taxpayers, certainly are not interested in investing in the system.
Mel
Post a Comment