posted on May 27, 2001 10:13:24 PM new
Is Commercial Advertising OK In Our Schools?
In public schools throughout America, more and more businesses are donating money to education in order to place their advertising to our kids in school. One may argue that since our kids get bombarded with advertising on television, in the magazines that they read, and on tobacco industry billboards that target them, that we may as well go ahead and go along with the trend and simply allow commercial advertising in our nation's schools.
Another chain of thought is that we, as parents and members of our society, are supposed to be protecting our children from dangers. Is manipulation by businesses of how kids spend their allowance money any different than manipulation for profit of any other sort? We can turn off the television, we can end the subscriptions of magazines that parents find inappropriate for their kids, and we can fight the tobacco industry in court to get them to stop targeting our kids. We can and we do those things (responsible parents do, at any rate).
But how about our kids in school? Are they not a captive audience for these commercial messages? Schools allow adverting on school lockers now, as well as Coke and Pepsi machines in the cafeteria; but should we allow advertising inside our kid's text books? Is that the reason why we are sending our kids to school, so that they are there to make businesses more money? Are you saying, "If it's good for Business, it's good for America!"?
I think that we ought to be saying NO to this type of school funding. What are YOU willing to do about it?
posted on May 28, 2001 07:26:21 AM new
borillar- this has been going on for 30+ years. i believe the first company to do this was World Book Encyclopedia. somehow if it is done in a school where there is truly a budgetary problem which is depriving kids of essential books, computers etc., i have no problem with it. however, IMHO if it is done in Beverly Hills High School it is not the same thing.
posted on May 28, 2001 09:51:00 AM new
I would never put down the corporation who guides our kids to request a set of World Book Encyclopedia. I DO resent corporations pushing our children to become so materialistic, they turn into obnoxious, greedy, pushy adults. Then, we scratch our heads and wonder "why bad things happen to good kids..." BigMac, BurgerKing, the latest hand-held computerized games, $100 running shoes (whatever happened to old-fashioned "tennis" shoes" )...none of these need to be advertized in school...
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on May 28, 2001 10:32:41 AM new
If you take the time to raise your kids almost all these influences can be counteracted. If you don't sellers of Cola and tennis shoes will be the least of your worries.
posted on May 28, 2001 11:05:52 AM new
A former Catholic priest, Ivan Illich, wrote a book called "Deschooling Society," in which he argues that our public education system does nothing but turn our children into "consumers." In fact, it has been argued that the original premise behind the establishment of public schooling was to produce a ready supply of trained/trainable workers for the new economy.
Schooling contributed to our adaptation to a time schedule very different from that of an agrarian society and it also encourages submission to authority. All qualitites valued by corporations. It also subtly promotes the idea that the acquisition of material wealth is an indicator of personal worth; a necessity for a consumer driven society.
Like xifene, I homeschool my kids. But I also speak out locally against "advertising" in my local school district in exchange for money and sponsorship. Kids ARE a captive audience and it's not right to subject them to blatant advertising. These corporations did their homework and they know exactly what they're doing. "Start young; you'll hook them for life."
And gravid may be right that if parents took time with their kids they can counteract this influence. But let's be practical, a lot of parents don't. And guess who MY kids get to spend their time on earth with? All these other kids who weren't fortunate enough to have parental attention. I'm certainly going to make it my business to speak out when I can because I do care about these other kids if only for the selfish reason that they will have an impact on MY kids' lives. No one lives in a vacuum.
posted on May 28, 2001 01:26:37 PM newOf course the companies crashing the school gate have nothing against education. Students should by all means learn, they say, but why don't they read about our company, write about our brand, research their own brand preferences or come up with a drawing for our next ad campaign? Teaching students and building brand awareness, these corporations seem to believe, can be two aspects of the same project. Which is where Channel One, owned by K-111 Communications, and its Canadian counterpart, the Youth News Network, come in, perhaps the best-known example of in-school branding.
At the beginning of the decade, these self-styled in-school broadcasters approached North American school boards with a proposition. They asked them to open their classrooms to two minutes of television advertising a day, sandwiched between twelve minutes of teenybopper current affairs programming. Many schools consented, and the broadcasts soon aired. Turning off the cheerful ad patter is not an option. Not only is the programming mandatory viewing for students, but teachers are unable to adjust the volume of the broadcast, especially during commercials. In exchange, the schools do not receive direct revenue from the stations but they can use the much-coveted audiovisual equipment for other lessons and, in some cases, receive "free" computers.
Channel One, meanwhile, charges advertisers top dollar for accessing its pipeline to classrooms - twice as much as regular TV stations because, with mandatory attendance and no channel-changing or volume control, it can boast something no other broadcaster can: "No audience erosion." The station now boasts a presence in 12,000 schools, reaching an estimated eight million students.
- Naomi Klein, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, 1999
This book was a fascinating read, especially the chapter called "The Branding of Learning" from which the above is quoted. Also discussed in this chapter is the presence of Coke/Pepsi and fast foods chains in school cafeterias and exclusive deals they strike with schools in order to maintain that presence. (It relates a story of one high school student who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt with a Pepsi logo on the school's official "Coke Day!" ) Also discussed is the impact on the curriculum of various universities who receive corporate sponsorship money.
posted on May 28, 2001 05:31:39 PM new
We homeschool too. Hi Jen.
We do have advertising in our school. It's on daddy's free t-shirt from the web, on the tv, on the computer, in the mail on the school table, on the box we kept the library book in. Our trash can says Coca-Cola.
Can't get away from it.
T.
~should read "books". Don't need a box for just one, huh?
[ edited by jt on May 30, 2001 03:45 AM ]
posted on May 28, 2001 10:17:11 PM new
Apples for students is a wonderful program - and it has enabled many schools to add or update computers in the classrooms.
How about Boxtops for Education? Our school acquires new, much needed items each year through this program.
Advertising is a constant in our lives these days. I only have a major problem if it involves an item I would not want my child to be familiar with.
I think that unfortunately this is the runoff effect from the budget cuts in education. The business sector has seen a need and has chosen to help fill it to their benefit.
My hats off to those of you who homeschool. You have taken on a HUGE undertaking. I applaud you for doing so.
posted on May 29, 2001 08:33:29 AM new
I have a controversial suggestion on how we can update our schools instead of drowning our kids in Branding: why not take Federal Tax Dollars and spend it on updating the schools as they need, instead of having them rely upon advertising companies? What a thought!
posted on May 29, 2001 10:12:58 AM new
Borillar- considering that Dubya is in the White House your suggestion is controversial at best. after all, look what he did for Texas' education system! BTW- federal dollars have a way of missing the inner city schools.
posted on May 29, 2001 11:35:11 PM new
Stutsi: so true. The stupid formula for funding schools, i.e. local property tax assessments, makes it necessary for urban school districts to seek partnerships with business to help purchase technology and other materials needed in the classroom.
Those partnerships are vital since state's don't fund schools equitably, nor does the federal government.
For example, in Indiana, the state's largest public school district - urban and mostly made up special needs children: poor, minority, high mobility and ESL populations; has more than 41,100 students. Yet, it receives considerably less than growing, suburban school systems with less than 10,000 children.
The state's rationale is a district that has experienced declining student enrollment, despite an increase of at-risk kids - and the highest concentration of them - should receive less funding.
You tell me. Does a school district that has more than 70 percent of its students qualifying for free or reduced cost lunches (meals, breakfast is included) be given more or less? Does that district have the same resources that a suburban, more affluent school system enjoys? Or even the same issues and challenges? Nope.
State lawmkers say they dole funds out this way based on what they receive in state tax assessments (property, excise and gambling revenues)and the amount that comes from the federal government. Urban districts face so many issues and are plagued by low student achievement, yet don't get equitable funding that is critical to addressing those needs. Too many times, those needs are ignored or glossed over. Yet they are real.
Imagine your child starting school in late (hot and humid) August in a 80-year-old building that lacks central air. State assessment/achievement tests are administered in mid-September, in air-conditioned-less school buildings. It's so miserable, kids doze off in the heat. That's the reality of teaching in an urban school system, many which have old and aging buildings/facilities.
The rhetoric from the current administration (Bush) is attempting to redirect those critical dollars to vouchers to be used for private schools. I don't believe that's the answer. Public education is vital. This country has an obligation to teach all of its children, regardless of class, race, or religious indoctrination.
Off my soapbox now.
**left out a word (and sentences)**
[ edited by Baduizm on May 29, 2001 11:44 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2001 12:01:59 AM new
Yeah, that always chapped my hide. A state ought to collect all of the funds that go to schools. Then, it ought to be divided equally by the total number of kids of school age in the state. The money then goes to public schools, the amount based upon the number of kids attending. What has happened until now is that if you live in a rich neighborhood, your kids got a great public education. If you live in a poor neighborhood, your kids received a sub-standard education because the money is not there to pay for everything that is necessary. Funny, Republican Conservatives do not want to pay for public education so that the poor can become self-sufficient, yet they do not want to pay for welfare or other subsidies that go to support people who are not able to qulaify for a job. That's the sort of nonsense logic that conservatives believe in.
posted on May 30, 2001 12:33:52 AM new
"Funny, Republican Conservatives do not want to pay for public education so that the poor can become self-sufficient, yet they do not want to pay for welfare or other subsidies that go to support people who are not able to qulaify for a job. That's the sort of nonsense logic that conservatives believe in."
Ah, Borillar, here lies the nonsensical argument. GOP conservatives use rhetoric that undermines public education, particularly when it comes to minority children. See, they started the argument that public education was failing - failing minority kids. They used code words that were akin to racist words, i.e. urban schools, were a failure since so many poor, minority and disadvanted children were suffering from low academic achievement.
Public schools were "bad," since they were serving a disproportionate number of inner-city or urban children.
Inner city schools (hint, hint, those with overwhelming populations of black or Latino/Hispanic students) were sorely lacking. So, minority kids deserved options, a better chance. Therefore, public money should be funneled through vouchers for parents who want their kids to go to higher quality, private schools.
Here's the fallacy: The majority of teachers who work in private schools earn wages considerably less than public school educators. Most private schools don't even require teachers to be state certified to teach in the classroom. Also, state assessment scores - here - are nearly identical among inner-city Catholic schools and their public school counterparts. The issue is equity: equity in school funding and salaries. Public schools, especially urban districts, can do great things and help children learn if given the resources.
Money is the issue.
Suburban districts, with their soccer moms who motor around in SUVs, have far more parental involvement. If you are juggling three jobs to put food on the table and make ends meet, which is more important: Going to an evening PTA meeting or catching some needed ZZZs?
I am not making excuses. I know public schools can do better. But I am sick of Conservatives arguing intangibles. Many don't have a clue, or are based in some 1950s version of reality.
Sheesh.
[ edited by Baduizm on May 30, 2001 12:35 AM ]
[ edited by Baduizm on May 30, 2001 12:38 AM ]
[ edited by Baduizm on May 30, 2001 12:40 AM ]
posted on May 30, 2001 05:19:58 PM new
Our local public school were closed fairly often this winter due to temperatures. Most of the classrooms don't have heat -- so if the temps are expected to stay low, they call a "snow day" and cancel classes. For reference, we're on the eastern border of the Smoky Mountains National Park.
posted on May 30, 2001 05:32:59 PM new
Look at the bright side: even though schools will not get re-built and classrooms not updated as was part of the Democratic educational plank last year, at least we get school testing -- that is, if Bush ever comes up with the money that he cut out of the Budget for it. In the meantime, corporate sponsors want to show some advertising to your kids -- it'll only take a minute or so per day ...
posted on May 30, 2001 07:22:30 PM new
I have 2 and yes we can sleep in the heat and school in the cool of the night it we like.
Our school district has a very new high school, an elementary only about 6 or 7 years old, and a middle school under construction. Not bad, but the building doen't change the social environment.
posted on May 30, 2001 07:53:30 PM new
Isn't money an interesting thing? You and your kids have it....everyone from government to business wants it...
Capitalism at its best...*G*
We have a local building affectionately called the "Pink Palace" because of the salaries of those who reside within for at least part of the working day....
No, they're not Catholic nuns and they don't teach our kids a thing but are intimately involved in education.
At least that's what they tell us......"your tax dollars at work for the betterment of education"
Follow the money.....we'll keep ours at home, thank you....
Oh, BTW, if I want to see advertising, I just cruise the local public school at 2:30pm....the students wear it.
posted on May 30, 2001 08:09:54 PM new
jt- I always wanted to homeschool mine, I just knew I couldn't. Way to go on homeschooling yours!
They make it hard here to, at least when I asked about it.
We live in an area where the High School is 'yuppie'. My youngest went to that one, and I would pick her up and the kids come out the doors after school, immediatly flip out their cell phones, and get in moms BMW, or their own. My oldest daughter on the other hand is so completely different, she refused to go to that 'snobby' school, as she called it, and took a bus to the worst school in the district. She graduated on honor roll, the youngest, ended up not too good, not wanting to go.... I ended up having to go before the stupid school board for her truancy. She ended up, either go to juvenile hall, or something. She was barely 18, and got into Job Corp and finished, now a pre school teacher -whew.
Oh yeah, in our district, I found out later, you don't even need a teachers certificate to teach! I don't know who said private school teachers don't need one. I only know when I went to private school, I am sure the teachers had teaching certificates, they were all nuns but then that was about 100 years ago......
posted on May 30, 2001 08:49:09 PM new
Hi NeartheSea,
You said: "I don't know who said private school teachers don't need one. I only know when I went to private school, I am sure the teachers had teaching certificates, they were all nuns but then that was about 100 years ago."
I made the mention regarding private school teachers and teaching licenses. I don't about other states, but the Archdiocese in Indiana requires all Catholic schools to be accredited by the state Department of Education, which means those schools adhere to the same rules and stipulations followed by public schools. That includes licensure for teachers, mandatory state assessmnt tests and the high-stakes graduation qualifying exam.
I don't know in what state you attended Catholic school, but it could be that there are similar requirements. Private schools, for the most part in most states, do not have to be registered with state education departments and are free from government bureaucracy, which is why so many folks are eager to start their own academies - at least that's the case here.
**typos**
[ edited by Baduizm on May 30, 2001 08:50 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2001 09:27:00 PM new
I can't get too excited about the need for certification of teachers. I have known plenty of certified teachers who could be certified straight into a padded room and are protected from a boot out the door by their union and the administration both.
The teachers I had who were good had qualities of character and kindness along with a personal depth of interest in the subject that they were teaching that no certification process seems to know how to measure.
posted on May 31, 2001 07:52:32 AM new
certifications, and degrees for that matter, are no guarantee of competency. it may be nice to know, however, that someone took the required courses. in many areas "tenure" is obtained simply by teaching for a certain number of years. it protects an incompetent teacher from being fired unless a tedious and costly review is initiated. i believe that teachers should be tested as students are. but this is a little off the subject.
posted on May 31, 2001 08:00:02 AM new
Hi Baduizm-up here in the Pacific Northwest, at least WA, Catholic schools require teaching certificates. Public schools in some districts do not.
I see what your saying about a lot of states not having to have them, so it makes it much easier to start up a private school.
My state most districts have different policies on that. The one my daughter went to, since she was truant so much, they took it seriously and slapped the 'Becca Bill' its a law here for students that are absent for 10 or more days. I was subpeoned twice. Consequences then were if it did go to court the judge can make the parent pay the price...$25 a day and or jail time.
A lot of the schools are VERY interested in having high enrollement, as for each student they recieve so much money.
When I went before the school board on these charges against me, as the parent of a truant student, I tried to get homeschooling as an alternative. They then slapped a million papers in front of me, and told me if I could meet these requirements (which are not the same as the very school she was attending) I could do it. I needed either a teachers certificate, or pay a teacher/tutor to come in once a week to oversee her work, and it was not cheap. It ended as she was just turning 18 and still would be senior, she herself enrolled in Job Corp. And finished there, with a trade.
I would have liked to homeschool, but would have liked to (if I had) when they were young, like first grade.
I have 2, who are 12 months apart, so I felt it would be fairly easier, and the elementary they went to at the time, it was ok, but I thought they may have learned more, (if I could get that energy! to do it) because what they were coming home with in those early years, was so different when I was in elementary school. It was too easy for my oldest daughter, and she did get bored. But they went by 'the book'.
Their particular school was not overcrowded then. But then they started 'expierementing' with grades, by the time mine were in the 4 or 5th grade. They decided that they no longer were going to have grading (A,B,C ..)
but instead, if 'Johnny' couldn't do the work, or couldn't keep up, the whole class would stop, and go over and review until 'Johnny' was up to the same level.
Their reasoning (it all went before PTA etc)
that if one child couldn't learn as fast, or was just a little slow, they would feel bad... that it *might* cause 'psyhological' problems later, and that child would end up quitting or something, when they were older.
I was totally against this new system. I believed if a child excelled in an area, they should get that 'A'. Instead every child passed at the same level. I thought that was insane. They did end up back to the old grading system, when too many parents complained, or pulled their kids out.
That was just one of my reasons I wanted to homeschool. They would have interacted with other kids, they were both involved in softball, then fastpitch from 2nd grade thru junior high, and I would have put them in it, if I had homeschooled.
)...none of these need to be advertized in school...