Get Schooled

By Jeff

June 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

That ‘which companies’ question is the key here.

Because once you open the door to one, it MUST be open to all.

Which means that if you allow the local car dealership to put its logo on something within the school for x amount of money, you must also allow any organization that donates x amount of money to place its logo in a similar location.

For the liberals: Do you want the local Southern Baptist church to have its logo in the school? What about a construction company whose pracitces aren’t environmentally friendly? What about Exxon-Valdez?

For the conservatives: Do you really want the local adult bookstore to be able to advertise in the local high school? After all, most seniors are 18 and it is perfectly legal for them to be customers of this store. What about the local chapter of GLAAD? What about the local pagan organization?

Some cans are so full of worms that it is simply better to leave the can CLOSED….

By WFC

June 6, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Raising money for schools through corporate sponsorship is a seductive idea and should not be dismissed out of hand.

However, we should be aware that what coporations want from schools may not be what is best for American education. To wit:

• Corporations may want an endless supply of obedient little drones who will contribute to their financial bottom line.

• Corporations may want an endless supply of mindless consumers who will continue to buy their products (gas guzzling SUV’s, etc.) no matter what.

Is that YOUR idea of “education?” Just a thought.

By lyncoln

June 6, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

My middle school had a partnership with Panasonic. So the middle schoool got some various televisions, VCRs, and at least one very large television to help improve old AV equipment. In return Panasonic got to talk about it’s partnership with the school and put it’s logo on a few of the major school events (I assume they provided some financial towards snacks, programs, etc.)

My High School yearbook has advertisements for local shops in the back along with some of the senior greetings from parents to their graduating seniors. High school sports programs always have advertisements sold to local businesses.

So, is the corporate sponsership supposed to be a larger scale than this? “Welcome to X County’s Large Corporation High School… home of the best mechanical manufacturing shop class in the State!”

I have a feeling that communities would revolt against the concept of a corporation purchasing naming rights to an actual public school. If a corporation wants well trained worker drones, it would probably be smarter just to build and run a private school with funding from the corporation. They already get an endless supply of mindless consumers, but not programmed to a specific brand name.

By OldSchool

June 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

We’ve had corporations in schools for many, many years…or at least the advertisements. Check out what kids are wearing and you’ll see designer/brand names emblazoned on shirts, hoodies, tote & bookbags, shoes, you name it. The big difference is in which way the money flow.

Out. From the students’ and their parents’ wallets into the coffers of the businesses who early on figured out kids want to express their individuality by wearing the current cool logo/brand.

At least when CocaCola or Pepsi install an expensive scoreboard with its logo, the school is getting something of value. Channel One put televisions in our school and required only that their school news program with commercials be aired.

BTW: the jim d harangue posted at 10:12 today makes almost no sense to me. Would someone kindly translate?

By V for Vendetta

June 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

I think cases can be made to avoid some of the situations you are describing. For instance, the majority of students in high school are NOT eighteen, so I think keeping adult content, beer and wine, and most objectionable material out wouldn’t be too terribly difficult. I think you could even make a case to avoid rated R movie posters; although, I completely disagree with the MPAAs ratings systems, but that’s another (LONG AND BORING) blog topic. I’ll spare everyone.

As far as indoctrinating kids with certain types of advertising … I don’t think it’s the problem most people think it is. If the ads or logos were not allowed in classrooms, only in hallways, entrances, facility names, etc., then the kids would really not have much more exposure to them than they do television commercials, billboards, radio ads, and internet pop ups. Te be honest, if you count the number of ads you’re subjected to on a daily basis, you’ll be shocked by the number. The school ads would seem like tiddlywinks by comparison.

I like this idea, and I think we need more of the real jim d and less of the poseur moron who posted above. I might not always agree with jim d, but there’s no denying he’s got some good idea.

By catlady

June 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Get out the fishin’ net, Martha! Let’s troll for Trolls!

By HS Teacher Too

June 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

To piggyback on what V said, public schools would be considered public forums, true, once they open themselves up as such, but my limited (albeit growing) First Amendment knowledge is not set on whether allowing naming rights would constitute the kind of public forum speech that would require allowing everyone an equal opportunity, because I’m not sure that the naming really constitutes that kind of speech. It’s an interesting question, and I’ll ask one of my professors about this, because now I am curious.

In the meantime, the Exxon Valdez was the actual ship, not the name of the company. So, you’d just be worried about Exxon itself advertising, not the Valdez. :)

Finally, at least in Gwinnett, schools sign all SORTS of lucrative deals with corporate sponsors all the time. One company picks up the shoes for the football team, another sponsors the digital scoreboard, etc., etc. Why not expand this to naming rights for other, presumably non-athletic, parts of the schoo? Even my public law school has lecture halls named for corporate donators — for example, the “Alston-Bird Lecture Hall,” (though I made that up) or the “Cadwalader Conference Center,” (also made up). So why shouldn’t schools perhaps stop short of naming rights for the school itself, but allow for, say, “the TBS Media Center,” or the “CNN Auditorium,” or the “Nike Gymnasium,” and the “Adidas Weight Training Room,” for example?
Quite frankly, I don’t think we’d run into the “Pink Pony Girls Locker Room,” but if the Pink Pony really wanted to go to court I am quite certain the school systems would be glad to fight that.

By Tony

June 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

This is about the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. We have already sold our souls to the devil when it comes to public education.

By Stacey

June 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

The company I work for contributes to the athletic departments of the high schools in counties where we have offices. I exchange our company’s logo (including web address & phone #) is printed on the back of the t-shirts (along with other businesses), on the souvenier cups, programs, etc. We also have a banner that hangs in the stadium during home football, baseball and basketball games. I get quite a few phone calls saying something to the effect of “I saw at the such & such game…” I could see something like that working on a larger scale with reputable corporations. Just because “The Pink Pony” offers sponsorship doesn’t mean you have to accept it. JMO

By HS Teacher Too

June 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Tony, You’re exactly right, of course, but the soul-selling has already happened. Since we can’t undo it, why not make it work for us? Why should only the athletic departments get the benefit? Why not libraries, and television studios, and art classes, etc.? I shudder at the thought of Coca-Cola High School, but if we already have Coca-Cola Stadium, why not also have the Coca-Cola Visual Arts Center? I don’t know that anyone really cares (and I think this is distinguished from the various boosters that get to display banners at games), and if it benefits the kids, I’m for it. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t happen at all. But since it does happen, I would prefer it to be more “fairly” distributed, for lack of a better word.

By Cartman

June 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Simpson’s did it.

By Enlightned One

June 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

If a list of acceptable business types were constructed and sales of naming rights, ads ect were kept on that list only then I would be for it, under certain circumstances. Pleas note I have 2 children in school now. All the money raised from the sales MUST go to the general fund. At the end of the year total all sales and find out what portion of the whole budget the sales bring in. Then reduce the school tax for those citizens that do not have children in the school system the same percent. This would never work because of the lawsuits resulting from the exclusion of certain businesses. Just a thought.

By D'Anna

June 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

My darling Tony, it’s not selling your soul when the exchange is fair and equitable! In return for their partnerships/investment, they get a better prepared workforce. Get our of the box for goodness sake….what we are doing is not working. Corporations are apart of the village too!

By JeremiahWright

June 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

It’s better than having to name everything after a black guy (eg, Hartsfield-JACKSON).

By JeremiahWright

June 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Don’t be ridiculous WFC. Corporations want name recognition, that’s all. Stupid conspiracy nut.

By jim d

June 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

You know Laura, I’m seeing some pretty good arguments on both sides of this one. However, I still feel it could work. When soliciting bids in the real world are sent out for a project there is almost always a note suggesting the any bid may not be accepted. Using something similar in a naming bid invitation to bid would allow for a committee to determine which bid to accept.

I personally see little or no reason not to do whatever is necessary to increase revenues for our schools and reduce the tax burden on the public.

By Harold

June 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Who deems which sponser is apporpriate to sponsor a school endeavor? For example, I doubt that any institution who embrace a gym sponsored by Malt Liquor distributor or condom manufactor. However, I find it ironic that a soft drink company can sponsor. Don’t soft drinks promote tooth decay and obesity? Selling out for money is selling out for money.

By jim d

June 6, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

BTW Laura,

Thanks for cleaning up the troll dung..

By jim d

June 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Harold,

If we can impose restrictions on tobacco advertising I’d suggest it would be a simple matter to do so on other inappropriate sponsors. Let a school committee, perhaps the school council make the call.

By JeremiahWright

June 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Harold,

Soft drinks don’t make your teeth rot, and they don’t make you fat. Sitting on your butt and not brushing your teeth does that.

By Lee

June 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

The ‘ol Devil must be feeling a chill right about now, because….

I agree with Jeff.

Once you open this Pandora’s box, I really don’t think there is a legal way to limit the participation to just a few politically correct organizations.

So the question becomes - do you want your public education tax dollars to buy textbooks or pay lawyers to fight lawsuits?

Hasn’t NASCAR taught ya’ll anything?

Of course, during track and field, it might be interesting to hear the public address system announce the winner of the “Viagra Pole Vault.”

(Sorry, couldn’t resist)

By Tony

June 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

Corporations are apart of the village too! Corporate America is already driving policy for education at the highest levels. Please check out the “Education Roundtable” to see who is involved in setting the agenda. The testing agenda is coming squarely from their corner. The true agenda is to find a way to get more tax money back into their own pockets.

Having experienced this kind of corporatizing of public schools through a contract with a major soft drink company, I have seen first hand the damage that is caused. Public schools are in place to grant equal access to all, not to give a forum for those who want to pay the price. There are costs that come with these kinds of deals, many in the form of unintended consequences.

I don’t think I’m the one “in the box” on this one.

By Tony

June 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

If I may add one more point, in the recent news about naming rights for a stadium being built to host a Braves subsidiary, I recall some problems with simply going with the highest bidder. I believe rival soft-drink companies were the concern. The bottom line for that stadium (and many others) is that it is being built with tax money and will be used for the private gain of a few already wealthy people. If it’s OK to use tax money for projects like that, why do you squabble over a few million dollars for your schools? It seems we really have some mixed up priorities these days.

By Sam

June 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Corporations are a part of the village too!

And so is the Devil. Now what’s that thing about money and the root of all evil? And about some deadly sin named Greed?

Might it be that some folks are quick to change their thinking to justify their behavior rather than change their behavior to elevate their thinking?

By jim d

June 6, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

Sam,

Could be

By catlady

June 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

It is just a question of degree. we’ve already sold our souls with deals with coke/pepsi for the ball teams, etc. I am personally against it 100%. The education legal issues classes I have had indicate it would have to be open to everyone without discrimination for business type, as long as legal. So, the Pink Pussycat physics lab may not be far away! Send your daughter to the Tampax home ec room! And I agree with Tony—we are SO compromised already, with businesses setting the agendas, such as testing. While FOB don’t have a monopoly on the money grubbing, it is pervasive in our public schools, and getting worse with each of the “improvements” adopted. We are already well down the slippery slope, but it doesn’t mean we have to take the express stairway!

By Abe

June 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Link to this

Corporations sponsoring public schools? To what end? The underlying premise—that public schools will do a better job educating students if only the schools had more money—is flawed.

Which public schools have a reputation that would actually help the brand image of a company?

By Sad

June 6, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this

troll - Don’t you need to be defending the Clayco teacher in the news as of late? You are the fake!

By A Teacher

June 6, 2008 11:12 PM | Link to this

You folks have NO faith in your kids, or yourselves!

Taking money from one business in no way obligates schools to take money from ALL businesses. Just as a stadium’s owners have the right to refuse the sponsorship of a questionable product or corporation, so too can a school or schoolboard refuse the sponsorship of a questionable company. There is NO reason that a school has to take the money of any business that offers it. If you aren’t aware, there is a serious deathmatch going on between Coke and Pepsi to make deals with schools. In exchange for a large contribution from the Soda giants, schools agree to allow only one companiy’s products on campus.

As to kids being turned into corporate drones. Do you raise your kids not to think at all!? Kids are bombarded by advertising all day every day, but they still manage to think for themselves. Kids are savvy enough to tell when they are being pitched a product and really don’t care.

The greatest danger, and the only one I can really see, is if schools and schoolboards are dumb enough to let corporate sponsors make procedural decisions about the content of material presented, food served, or impact curriculum decisions. Stopping that is up to the local school board and the community. All you have to do is refuse the agreement if it’s not in the best interest of kids. Surely, we can all be alert enough to recognize this and not allow it. Or are we just way too busy keeping up with American Idol, Survivor, and Lost to pay attention to what’s going on in our kids’ schools?

Get a grip, people. Schools have corporate partners already and the program is incredibly effective! It’s a win-win!

By WFC

June 7, 2008 6:59 AM | Link to this

J. Wright: “conspiracy nut?” I think not. The “hidden curriculum” of schools has been a topic of discussion since the 1960’s. I spent my 31 year career as a teacher, coach and administrator in public and private schoools. Bet you didn’t.

By catlady

June 7, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

A teacher—the difference is public vs. private. In public ed, all comers have to be considered equally. Remember the flap in Stephens County (?) over the gay/lesbian support club?

And corporate drones? See Reading First/ scripted reading/math. We ALREADY ARE turning them into Hitler-like drones. We already ARE letting companies control the curriculum!

By catlady

June 7, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

I call NCLB the “Halliburton-ing” of education. To the nth degree.

By catlady

June 7, 2008 7:46 AM | Link to this

I am not criticizing ALL school/private partnerships. With some, especially local, alliances, there is enough good to overcome any bad. In my district, the local banks compete to assist the schools. That is mostly good—the school has to give up little of its dignity to accept the help. The banks get good publicity as concerned members of the community. NO ONE gets their name on anything except the free umbrellas, pencils, and lunch totes the teachers get. The banks provide labor for the weekly football concession stand and their name is announced at the beginning of the game. The school gets the profits from the concessions without having the parents working the stand. Minimal interference.

By m

June 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

The one good thing that might come of this is that corporations might care whether their namesake schools are well-run.

By CC

June 7, 2008 8:50 PM | Link to this

CAN WE PLEASE FOCUS ON GETTING ANYONE OTHER THAN OBAMA ELECTED, SO, WE MIGHT GIVE OUR CHILDREN A CHANCE TO HAVE A LIFE.

By ron

June 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Link to this

So if Exxon comes in and says,”we’ll give you 3 billion dollars for your schools but we get to control the cirriculum”,then what?

By A Teacher

June 8, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

If Exxon comes in and offers you 3 million to run your curriculum, you say no. Is that all that complicated? It’s up to the school board and the community to stop that kind of insanity. I trust my schoolboard and community to do that. If you don’t, you elected the wrong school board and live in the wrong community.

As to the “drones” we’re educating. I teach a ton of kids who aren’t. If your kid is a drone, ask yourself if maybe you bear some of the blame. Teach them to think independently. That’s the one thing a lot of teachers have trouble with. Getting kids to think creatively and uniquely. That doesn’t start in first grade, you have to help kids do that from age two or three.

As to refusing the money of questionable donors: Catlady, a club and a sponsor are two VASTLY different things. By denying a club access, you’re telling kids that they can’t participate in or organize something that they are interested in. Sometimes equal access like that is a good thing, in other cases, there will be battles. Of course, that line is tough to draw. That line may be tough to draw with sponsors as well, but again, with a sponsor, all the school has to do is say, No. The sponsor has no RIGHT to give the school money and expect something in return. There’s not legal precedent for that. There is a legal precedent for kids to be allowed to start clubs and there should be.

By Atlanta Pearl Girl

June 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

I think anyway to get $$ into ‘especially’ City of Atlanta schools is a fabulous idea.

By Tony

June 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

This post is off-topic, but relevant to education. This article provides food for thought for those who think testing is the way to go. America had the world’s best schools

By catlady

June 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Teacher, on the drone syndrome: You may not work in the lower grades. We have government-sanctioned programs, such as Reading First, which require participants to use “approved” materials. These materials, published by companies who have friends in the highest government offices, require methods such as CLICKING DOG CLICKERS AT STUDENTS SO THAT THEY ANSWER IN UNISON. Things like that are used, beginning with 5 year olds, and result in kids who do not question, kids who are molded to perform like circus animals, Heil Hitler-style. You should read the stories the children are required to read. Let’s say, we’re not in Dick, Jane, and Sally Land anymore, for two hours and 40 minutes five times a week for 180 days for years. Think that might mess with a kid? Yet it is condoned and the school systems accept the big money cheerfully and no one seems to question. It can be much more subtle that this, however.

Re the selection of sponsors: there are problems with saying it is okay for this legal business to buy sponsorship, but not that legal business. School systems might be afraid of lawsuit by groups excluded from sponsorships. Just a possibility.

BTW, about school clubs. My son was refused consideration for a club in middle school because he was white. To get into the club students had to have high test scores, high achievement, and interest. Oh, and to be a minority. School system attorney stood up for the school initially, but finally decided I was not going away. You should see the pictures—black and Asian kids, and my blonde-haired son. At first he quoted the law regarding black university fraternities and sororities, ‘till I pointed out the difference between voluntary university attendance vs. mandatory school attendance/school zones. It was a group sponsored financially by a minority consortium professional group, but in the school facilities with school personnel as the adult leaders.

By Margaret

June 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Link to this

This is something that we should not want - I can hear the complaints now about unequal funding and imagine the ugliness of the mendacious behavior of school employees trying to achieve higher sponsorship levels. We’ll have expanded school staff - paid for by my taxes - to handle the begging and - dare we call it - “administration” of these activities. WHY can’t we have schools just focus on the basics??? Stop trying to gild the schools and school administrators and just teach, damn it.

By jim d

June 9, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

I’m afraid some just don’t get it.

Corporate America is already driving education—-Why not make them pay for it? The only thing to change will be who is footing the bill.

By catlady

June 9, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Oh, jim, so you are saying we should just milk whatever is already going on for the money? But, I think they are already getting enough school tax money as it is! At least, however, by your plan we would openly acknowledge it. I see. We could also have “chairs” endowed and supported by these groups (We do, in Reading First. They are called “coaches”). So we could have the Houghton-Mifflin chair of 3rd grade reading excellence, to provide a teacher for 3rd grade gifted kids, for example. The Coke chair for physical ed. Humm. I like the increased honesty and transparency.

By jim d

June 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Cat,

Ya just never know, Corporate sponsors might even be willing to pay teachers a bit more to get ones that would enhance their image. :-)

By jim d

June 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Cat,

I was raised on a dairy farm and learned at an early age not to waste, so when the cow is standing there leaking,indeed milk the beast.

By Tony

June 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

jim d, the corporates want more hand outs from the trough. This is why there is such a strong push to privatize!!!!!!!!!

By Alan

July 23, 2008 5:04 AM | Link to this

interesting..

By lrhx dpaibe

November 16, 2008 10:36 PM | Link to this

hrmsjy foszemqd kstug mvdpszuna olexanc qyxv krjbexucw

By vb

March 29, 2009 9:58 PM | Link to this

hu