Exciting news! The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing two weeks ago, on May 30, 2007 on Massachusetts House Bill 489: An Act Relative to the Public Health Impact of Commercialism in Schools. This is ground breaking bill that would prohibit nearly all advertising on school grounds, as well as prohibit any and all promotional material and gifts that carry a brand name or mark (unless it's a primary product - for example, a bag of Doritos can keep the Doritos logo). This is the strongest anti-school commercialism legislation in the nation and would set a huge precedent if it were to pass. It would make Massachusetts schools K - 12 commercial-free spaces.
A number of people testified at the hearing in support of the bill, including Elle Goldberg (Massachusetts PTA), Diane Levin, Ph.D. (CCFC co-founder, Professor of Education at Wheelock College), Susan Linn, Ed.D. (CCFC co-founder, author of Consuming Kids), Juliet Schor (author of Born to Buy, Professor of Sociology, Boston College), Mary Ann Stewart (parent, Lexington, Massachusetts) and Lin Vickory (parent and activist against Channel One, Lunenberg, Massachusetts). All of their testimony is available in full text on the CCFC website (or by clicking on their name above).
And if you would like to read more about Stewards and Vickory, two Massachusetts parents supporting the bill, the Worcester Star-Telegram published an article about their efforts.
Also, a piece by Steve LeBlanc covered the story, including thoughts from some opposing the bill.
State Rep. Brad Jones, the House Republican leader, said it's unclear how far the ban would go, whether it would bar posters for colleges or the military or T-shirts with rock band logos. He also said the ban is unnecessary.For my perspective, however, the bill is a statement by the state that advertising in schools is unacceptable, as well as a pledge to support schools in their efforts to combat commercialism and provide the highest level of education possible.
"It's like the thought police," said Jones, R-North Reading. "Any school district that has a problem can choose to ban ads anyway."
How it will all turn out is still to be seen, but I am reassured and encouraged that a bill like this exists at all. I think it’s a sign of change pushing in the right direction.
6 comments:
HB 489 is a sweeping, all-inclusive, and heavy-hammered bill, covering (at least theoretically) all visual expressions of commercial influence in grades K-12. It reminds me a bit of when my grade school teacher would get so fed up with unruly classroom chatter that she would put her hands on her hips, beam us a steely glare, and say, "That's it. SOME of us have ruined it for ALL of us. You chatterers just lost us five recess minutes."
Of course, we long ago reached the ideological place in which all commercial influence in schools is bad commercial influence in schools. HB 489 is more like a big, circus-style striped tent that must be applied to every school building in order to poison away the commercial cockroaches that lurk in classroom curriculae, food services, Clockwork Orange-style Channel One screenings, and seductive incentive programs. However, such a blanket bill urges a bit of devil's advocacy (a most fitting term, in this case). Those tents kill more than just cockroaches. What are the possible negative outcomes of HB 489?
I've been trying to think of any commercial influence that could actually be considered positive in a school setting-- or, more importantly, what this bill would actually mean in hard, practical terms. Would this mean that a band of merry painters, like Alice's deck of cards, would run around schools painting the Coca-Cola signs white? Will school principals monitor classrooms for posters with twin goals of promoting both literacy and Fritos? Will changing the visual environment change the way teachers use commercial examples and products in their classrooms? In school environments in which commercialism has become the terrible, disgusting, heartless norm, what will the world after HB 489 look like?
I think you are asking really important questions here. It is EXTREMELY difficult to decide how much is too much and how much is too little. Historically, schools were, for all intensive purposes, commercial free spaces. Textbooks were written by educators. The walls had student artwork or achievements posted on them. And yellow school buses were, well, yellow. Of course we've never kept all advertising out, nor do I think we should (or can for that matter). But in the past 15 or 20 years we have reached a critical point where commercialism in schools is resulting in the inability of educators, school districts, and parents to do their jobs well, in addition to having seriously dangerous physical, emotional, and developmental effects on students. Scientific studies are showing over and over how commercialism is distorting and disrupting what schools were supposed to be about -- democratic institutions that help build knowledgable, critical learners -- and what a safe environment for children and youth looks like.
You ask what the negative effects of HB 489 could be and what the world will look like afterwards. Well, the world will look pretty much the same. Kids can still have advertising stuffed in their ears and down their throats the other 16+ hours of the day. In fact they'll probably still wear their Baby Phat jacket, eat their Smokin' Cheddar BBQ Doritos, and put their worksheet in a SpongeBob folder, but that doesn't mean that making changes to their environment, even is small measure isn't important.
Yes, implimenting something like HB 489 would be very difficult and demand extreme dedication and conviction, and it holds real danger, I think, in the potentially huge financial crisis it could throw our schools into. I think the general public has little idea how much "support" schools really recieve today from businesses and corporations. But many educators feel they have no choice. They do not have the resources they deem vital to educate children well. Corporations offer resources (often biased, economics-guided resources) and schools accept them because they feel there is no alternative. We need to offer them an alternative. Otherwise they stay stuck in this sick lose-lose cycle.
If the bill is to pass, provisions must be make to safeguard the financial needs of maintaining and improving schools focused on the success and growth of the students.
I agree that HB 489 is no educational panacea, but even if it serves to force conversations about the dire straights of schools today, I take that as a much needed effort. Arguing for change, even if it doesn't come, is better than doing nothing. At the very least, you've got to be grateful if it gets people talking.
[url=http://www.christianlouboutintosale.co.uk]http://www.christianlouboutintosale.co.uk[/url] It is distributed from the lower reaches of the Ob River to the Khatanga. [url=http://www.vanesabrunosacparis.fr/]sacs vanessa bruno soldes [/url] Tlxyzklaw [url=http://www.oakleysunglassessforcheap.com/]sunglass oakley[/url]
cpzqbl 044659 [url=http://www.oakleyssunglassessoutlet.com/]oakley sunglass outlet[/url] 812476 [url=http://www.cheapsoakleysunglassess.com/]oakley sunglass strap[/url]
[url=http://www.christianlouboutintosale.co.uk]christian louboutin[/url] Canada Goose Freestyle VestTimberland boots outlet these panels monocle selling are stiffened at the base employing a laser minimize and canada goose jackets canada laminated insert that keeps canada goose jackets Canada the jacket canada goose jackets Canada potty near to the waist area, so no develop for just active any hem easy.. [url=http://www.vanesabrunosacparis.fr/]boutiques vanessa bruno[/url] Gbsbaaabj [url=http://www.oakleysunglassessforcheap.com/]oakley sunglass bag[/url]
igarzm 105598 [url=http://www.oakleyssunglassessoutlet.com/]oakley sunglass sale[/url] 105756 [url=http://www.cheapsoakleysunglassess.com/]oakley sunglass sale[/url]
[url=http://www.christianlouboutintosale.co.uk]http://www.christianlouboutintosale.co.uk[/url] Not knowing who this was - i look around aty who was wrapped around my waist - and oh yes - it was matt damon look alike! holy crap - not only was matt damon look alike friends with the firemen, but they all came to us! whoo-hoo!!!! ok - and it was only like 11. http://www.vanesabrunosacparis.fr Rgezcmfhp [url=http://www.oakleysunglassessforcheap.com/]oakley sunglass bag[/url]
soesco 670956 [url=http://www.oakleyssunglassessoutlet.com/]oakley sunglass bag[/url] 461425 [url=http://www.cheapsoakleysunglassess.com/]http://www.cheapsoakleysunglassess.com/[/url]
Post a Comment