What now?! Is Channel One encouraging youth to smoke?

It seems that since Channel One was first introduced into classrooms it has been embroiled in controversy. Some things never change. Since its introduction into schools in 1989 nearly every major national organization concerned with education has come out with strong dissention against the news organization, including the following groups:

• American Association of School Administrators
• American Federation of Teachers
• National Association of State Boards of Education
• National Council for the Social Studies
• National Council of Teachers of English
• National Education Association (NEA)
• National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
• National School Boards Association
• National Association of Secondary School Principals
• National Association of Elementary School Principals

For those who may not know, the Channel One Network leases audio-visual equipment to schools in exchange for a guarenteed captive audience each school day. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education provides a telling overview of many citizens qualms with Channel One. To give you an idea of Channel One's reach, the Center says,

Every school that shows Channel One signs a contract, essentially promising to deliver a "captive audience" - as Channel One promotional materials call students. Most schools must air Channel One on 90 percent of school days and in 80 percent of the classrooms.

Students and teachers cannot change the channel, turn off the program, or turn down the sound - an ideal environment from an advertiser's perspective. In exchange for this irresistible opportunity to market to a captive audience, Channel One can charge advertising rates of up to $195,000 per 30-second ad.

Channel One reaches 12,000 classrooms a day, which serve approximately 30% of American teenagers. Each broadcast is 12 minutes in length, and contains approximately 2 minutes of direct commercials. In addition, many lambast the network for airing fluffy material that serves to do little more than to advertise other products and materials in the guise of news.

And it's important to note that students watching Channel One on a regular basis are disproportionately poor and of color. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education says:

But a University of Massachusetts-Amherst study found that schools that can afford to say no to Channel One do say no. The study found that the program is disproportionately shown in schools located in low-income communities and communities of color. Channel One is found where the least money is available for education, where the least amount is spent on textbooks and other academic materials.

This raises additional questions concerning lack of school funding and how many districts are turning to corporate contracts as a result.

In addition, in September 2005, Gary Ruskin, the executive director of Commercial Alert, published a report entitled Smoking Class: How Schools and Channel One Promote Tobacco to Students in which he showed that 60% of movies advertised on Channel One portray smoking and that research has shown that students who see a significant amount of smoking in films are three times more like to start the habit than students who see less smoking on the big screen.

Mind you, Channel One's own website features a testimonial from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, stating:

"Channel One is an important and valued ally of the Campaign... Thank you for standing with kids in demanding healthy lives."

That can make it difficult to know what to believe. So, look around and read stuff for yourself. Then decide.

If you decide you would like to TAKE ACTION, Commercial Alert offers an online letter than can be sent to your local governor and state legislators requesting that Channel One be pulled from schools due to their promotion of smoking with youth.

Bratz suck -- Tell Scholastic to get 'em out of our schools!

Over the past several years Scholastic have come under increasing attack for marketings commercial toys and media to children. (You remember Scholastic, right? They probably did all your book fairs and book orders in elementary school.) Most recently they are getting slammed for continuing to sell Bratz merchandise through their book orders and book fairs.

Josh Golin talks a bit about the situation in an article from the journal Mothering in Jan. 2007.

An increasing number of parents and educators are concerned about the products sold at fairs organized by Scholastic, Inc., the nation's leading book fair company. They note the presence of non-book items such as posters, key chains, toys, fashion accessories, and electronic media. It's a little hard to figure out how bracelets, videogames, or whoopee cushions (I'm not making that up) promote literacy.

Even the American Psychological Association have sited Bratz as a a source of "societal messages that contribute to the sexualization of girls" and harm both healthy self-image and development.

Especially as the Bratz movie prepares to come out this summer, it's important to work to get such sexualized images out of schools. (Bratz merchandise, in and out of schools, are being marketed to kids as young as four. Dude, six year olds don't need badded bras. Nor do they need books from a brand that says they do.)

To get a taste of what pissed off parents are saying, check out TheMomSquawkBlog.

And to TAKE ACTION, there is an email drive being hosted by CCFC. You can send an online letter to Scholastic asking them to stop selling Bratz merchandise to children.

'Reading First' comes under investigation

In late April, the Washington Post printed an article titled "Key Initiative Of 'No Child' Under Federal Investigation: Officials Profited From Reading First Program." As you can imagine, that's not a good thing. Now lots of folks have been against NCLB for a long, long time and for a lot of reasons (Alfie Kohn, one of my progressive education super heroes, had a very biting article published in USA Today recently about the evils of NCLB if you would like to review some of the Act's downfalls.), but the focus of this investigation isjust another example our schools and our children being used for profit in the name of education. But perhaps the most frightening aspect of it all is that it is being carried out at the level of the federal government. The highest officials in the land are making decisions that put money before children's education.

As you can imagine, the response to all this hasn't exactly been a welcoming cheer. Just as a taste, some of the comments that came into the WaPo include:

This only confirms what has seemed apparent ever since government started micromanaging education. Here...do this...and to what seems irrelevant to educators as a help, becomes mandatory and all these relatives and friends of the government officials doing the mandating get hired and paid big bucks. Does this help children learn? No. In fact, all the rules insitituted by No Child Left Behind keeps teachers and administrators so busy filling out paperwork that less time on task is actually available. Once again, children are the ones neglected. But..hey! Stick an Ipod in their ear while the teacher fills out the paperwork and call it technical education.
By coolfuzzybreeze | Apr 21, 2007 3:08:13 AM

I cant believe that a program sponsered by this administration has been used to enrich loyal Bushies. This must be some kind of mistake. Its probably just some more liberal propoganda...
By vwallen1007 | Apr 21, 2007 7:25:30 AM

If you are interested in reading the audit report of Reading First, which kinda got this whole ball rolling, it's available online in both pdf and Word document. And Education Week blogger Alexander Russo did a nice job of summarizing the big points of the hearings, concluding with a pretty telling statement. He said:

It's still hard to imagine this story breaking through to the political or massive media coverage level, given everything else that's going on. But the comparisons to Gonzalez-gate continue to emerge...

It is an extremely valid point. This stuff isn't making the main stream news. And even though the ramifications are huge, we aren't hearing about it. The story istn't talked about, unless you're in the right circles. But it's happening. And the consequences are pretty dire. As quoted in Kathleen Kennedy Manzo's Education Week article,

In an interview after the hearing, Mr. [George] Miller [Rep. D-Calif. & commitee chairman] said: “This hearing made it pretty clear that there was a very incestuous relationship among a small group of people in the Education Department and among contractors. They were very clearly using this program … for profit.”

Getting started: a basic, basic overview

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:

1. 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.)
   
2. 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.)
3. 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.)
4. 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.)
   
5. 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.)
   
6. electronic marketing – Corporations provide electronic equipment or programming in exchange for the right to advertise to students. The best known example is Channel One.
7. 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.)
   
8. 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...)
   

Being totally straight up, I don't think all school commercialism is bad (I'd take $20,000 if Coke offered it, wouldn't you?), but I do think that a lot of it is pushing very dangerous ethical boundaries in our schools. As we get going, we'll look at examples more closely.