www.muohio.edu/InitiativeAnthology/
Posted March 24, 2003
Commercialism in Schools:
A Moral Imperative for School Leaders
by
L
Tom Goodney
eaders may have strong moral commitment but still find themselves thrust
into agonizing ethical dilemmas where the right course of action is
uncertain, where rules are unavailable, where computers are silent, where staff can
advise but only the leader can decide (Bogue, 1985, p.146). What this suggests is that
leaders must have a strong moral purpose if they are to truly carry out their duties with
conviction. Fullan (2001, p.3) suggests that "moral purpose means acting with the
intention of making a positive difference in the lives of employees, customers, and
society as a whole." This complex combination of moral commitment and purpose in all
its forms is at the very heart of school leadership in the 21st century.
An issue of deep concern facing educational leaders today requiring careful moral
consideration is that of commercialism in schools. A pervasive aspect of contemporary
American culture, commercialism in schools evidences itself in several ways. Of
particular concern in this analysis is the use by corporations of electronic marketing
(Channel One), sponsored educational materials, and exclusive soft-drink contracts
(pouring rights agreements). "Look around any public school these days and it's not
hard to detect the relentless creep of naked commercialism," says Kingsley Hammett
(2001). Hammett argues that the magnitude of the problem can be seen by
understanding that,
The schools are now effectively integrated into the marketing machine and
long-term planning of most corporations, where the school has become
simply another part of corporate sales and public relations strategy.
Corporate messages find their way into the schools through every means
imaginable: Web browsers with ads, school voice mail systems with
commercialized messages, credit cards tied into school promotions,
2
corporate-sponsored educational materials, television programs with
advertisements, sponsorships of activities, incentive programs, door-todoor sales promotions, and the naming of facilities, even classrooms. (p.
27)
The reality that schools are a part of a marketing machine and neatly categorized
into corporate sales and public relations strategies is disturbing. I am guilty of not
recognizing this cultural phenomenon as a problem for school leaders and public
education until very recently. As an educational leader, specifically a principal of a
small, rural high school, I absolutely must have an opinion on commercialism in my
school and how it affects the learning culture. Alex Molnar (in Hammett, 2001) suggests
that, "In the last twenty years, amid a political climate marked by industry deregulation,
global trade, and public-private partnerships, the doors to American schools have been
flung wide open to a broad range of commercial interests, including banks, utilities,
manufacturers, and food-products producers." Molnar points out, "These are the sorts
of background, ambient relationships that people don't think about any more than they
do about the air they breathe (p. 27)."
Exclusive Agreements
P
erhaps the area of greatest concern to those opposed to commercialism in
schools is that of marketing contracts with beverage companies. Often
referred to as "pouring rights," these contracts can reach into the millions of dollars for
a school district willing to negotiate such a deal. Colorado Springs District 11 negotiated
an agreement with Coca-Cola worth $8 million over 10 years in a highly publicized
agreement. In this instance, "a top district official sent letters to administrators urging
them to increase Coke sales in their schools (Hardy, 1999, p.7)." Hardy also points out
that many have criticized the Colorado Springs' agreement saying that schools have no
business pushing any soft drinks on students, let alone a particular brand.
The presence of exclusive "pouring rights" agreements raises ethical, moral, and
cultural questions for school leaders. Even on a small scale such as the contract my
district has with 7UP, the presence of the soda machines in the cafeteria, hallways, and
concession stand at athletic events has raised concern from teachers, our school nurse,
and a few parents. It is reasonable then to ask why school districts enter into these
3 Commercialism in schools
agreements. Jean Fallow (2002) suggests that, "Schools are increasingly accepting
advertising and corporate sales because they are desperate for consistent funding
sources (p.5)." In my district, our agreement with 7UP provides for $1,000 a year in
scholarships to college bound seniors, cash payments totaling $35, 000 over five years,
in addition to a percentage of sales from six vending machines located in various areas
of the JH/HS building. The money generated through the vending machines is
deposited into three accounts (Faculty, Principal, and Renaissance). Each fund is used
to cover expenses to benefit students in the classroom, through academic incentive
programs, and for faculty recognition. Without the money generated through this
agreement, several programs would cease to exist unless our Board of Education elected
to support them.
To what extent are schools pursuing these exclusive agreements to fund similar
and other educational initiatives for the students and staff? Molnar and Morales (2000)
estimate that these exclusive agreements have increased 1,384% since 1990. However,
point out the authors,
Although the exclusive agreements category has increased overall, the rate
of increase seems to be slowing. A number of school districts have begun
to question the value of exclusive pouring rights agreements-including
Philadelphia and Santa Fe, which turned down $43 million and $2.4
million deals, respectively. (Davilla, 2000; Snyder, 2000 in Molnar and
Morales, 2000, p.40)
Further evidence of the apparent decline of exclusive "pouring rights" agreements can
be seen in the following example.
In March, Coca-Cola announced it was backing away from the exclusive
pouring rights contracts it pursued with schools during the past several
years. The company said that it would allow competing drinks such as
juice, water, and vitamin-rich products into school vending machines
where it was a supplier. Coke executives also told the media that they were
urging local bottlers to let schools limit sales of soft drinks at lunch and
remove corporate branding from the fronts of vending machines. (Toppo,
2001 in Molnar and Reaves, 2001, pp. 75-76).
4
Not only have beverage companies responded to criticism regarding these
agreements in recent years, but school districts themselves have become more assertive
and creative in negotiating agreements. Recently a consortium of schools near Grand
Rapids, Michigan, negotiated a contract with Coca-Cola resulting in, "a twenty year
contract that gives them $10 a year for each of their 95,000 students, plus a percentage
of sales … totaling $4 to $5 million a year" (Hardy, 1999, p.8). What is unique in this
instance is that the consortium made several contractual demands including but not
limited to, number of vending machines, times the machines would be in use, prices to
consumers, and specific items that would be offered. The apparent advantages gained
through such negotiations do not impress Alex Molnar, director of the Center for
Analysis of Commercialism in Education. "They are allowing a corporation to advertise
to their students. And that corporation is presenting messages that contradict the very
messages the schools are offering in their own health and nutrition classes," says Molnar
(Hardy, p.8).
Molnar argues that school districts should not be patting themselves on the back
by negotiating some measure of control in their agreements with companies like CocaCola. "That's the kind of logic a parent wouldn't accept from a 7-year-old. Why should
we accept it from a school district or school board members (Hardy, 1999)?" Molnar's
argument appears to have significant validity. The typical initial response given by
schools in the face of criticism over these exclusive agreements was one of 'we know
soda is not the healthiest thing we could offer, but the kids and staff love it and we
simply have to raise money some how.' Now that school administrators have been
provided with even louder criticism, the argument has become,' look at how much more
savvy we've become negotiating these deals. We even offer water!'
This raises a related issue on why districts are adjusting their exclusive
agreements or severing them all together. That is the health-related research that has
been released in recent years on the negative health effects of soft drinks and snacks.
This research has compelled several state legislators to introduce "bills that would ban
or limit the sales of sugary drinks, candy, or fatty snack foods in K-12 schools"
(Bowman, 2001, p. 1). "We don't allow kids to smoke in schools, we have zero tolerance
for violence in schools, and I believe this falls into the same category," said Minnesota
Rep. Gene P. Pelowski, who has introduced a House bill on behalf of the state's dentists
5 Commercialism in schools
that would prohibit the sale soft drinks on school property (Bowman, 2001, p. 1).
Bowman also reports that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, "13
percent of 6-11 year-olds and 14 percent of 12-19 year-olds are considered overweight,
based on a formula that considers age, weight, and height (p. 1)." There are twelve states
presently considering some sort of restriction on soft drink sales in schools. It would
appear that policy makers are hearing the opponents to exclusive soft drink agreements
more loudly than school officials.
Schools fail to realize the moral imperative asserted by Molnar. School officials
find safety in justifying these deals by pointing out the financial inequities of school
funding for instance, without ever really examining whether or not they actually need
the funds generated from the items sold in our schools. Bogue (1985) cautions us in
education that, "Duplicity is an enemy of leadership (p. 181)." In this case, it would
appear school administrators have brought about their own enemy.
Electronic Marketing
T
he widespread pressure on schools to incorporate technology into every
aspect of the school day appears to be driving the continued increase in the
electronic marketing category (Molnar and Morales, 2000). Examples are varied in
scope, but on a smaller scale schools are attempting to beef up Internet use by students
by providing connections from home to school with ad-bearing school Web sites. Other
leading E-marketing efforts are much broader in scope and have emerged from the
computer field. In these cases, corporations provide equipment in return for rights to
reach students with advertising. Molnar and Morales (2000) relate the following
example,
Two key players, ZapMe! and N2H2, were dealt setbacks in 2000-2001.
N2H2 agreed to remove banner advertisements from computers used by
47,000 students in Seattle after a citizens' movement criticized the
practice (Ervin, 2001), while ZapMe! changed its name to rStar and
announced it was getting out of the education business (Benner, 2001).
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader once described ZapMe! as a "corporate
predator" for bombarding school computers with advertisements and
collecting online profiles of students (Rushkin, 1998, p. 42).
Examination of these types of marketing efforts reveals a relatively constant ebb and
flow of initiatives by corporations which are met with varying degrees of success
eventually resulting in some sort of exit from the school by the corporations.
6
The largest and most sustained electronic marketing effort is not related to the
Internet nor computer hardware. Hardy (1999) states that, "The nature of school
advertising changed fundamentally in 1990, when Whittle Communications launched
Channel One. Channel One is seen daily by eight million students in 12,000 classrooms
(Channel One, 10/7/02), and represents one of the primary areas of concern for
opponents to commercialism in schools. Channel One is an advertising vehicle owned by
Primedia. Its daily broadcasts are twelve minutes, with approximately 20 percent of its
airtime dedicated to political, economic, social, and cultural stories. The remaining
airtime (80 percent) is split between advertising, sports, weather, features, and Channel
One promotions to students. Out of the twelve minutes of airtime, two minutes is
dedicated to advertisements primarily for snack food, soft drinks, and video games. A
key component of a Channel One contract with a school is that classroom advertising is
compulsory. Therefore, every constitutional and legislative mandate that makes school
attendance mandatory also mandates commercials.
As part of the initial contractual agreement, Channel One outfits a school with
networked TV sets in every classroom. Payment is made by requiring captive students to
view their programming. Alex Molnar (in Channel One, 10/7/02) estimates that
Channel One costs taxpayers $1.8 billion annually in lost instructional time, including
$300 million in class time lost to commercials. This article also points out that,
"Channel One's owners describe the program to potential advertisers as a direct pipeline
to teenage consumers and as the most effective way to reach teens (p. 5)." It is also
conservatively estimated that advertisers pay $200,000 for each 30-second commercial
on Channel One.
Channel One spokeswoman Susan Tick says the company offers a valuable
service: news shows created especially for students (Hardy, 1999). That may be true, but
those who oppose the program provide a different slant. These opponents span a large
ideological spectrum. You have the NEA Representative Assembly, the Consumer's
Union, and the Southern Baptist Convention. All of these organizations are united on
one theme: It's wrong to provide a captive audience of school children to
advertisers to promote their products and services.
Across the United States, citizens are applying pressure on schools to eliminate
ties with Primedia and the Channel One network. In November 2001, the Seattle School
7 Commercialism in schools
Board voted to kick Channel One out its schools as well as cut back on the amount of
other advertising on school property. The policy phases out Channel One news
broadcasts in middle schools and high schools by the end of the 2004-05 school year
(Ervin, 11/22/01). Jim Metrock, President of Obligation (an organization dedicated to
eradicating Channel One in Alabama schools) wrote in a letter to members of local
boards of education in Alabama,
A previous board signed a contract with Channel One. Now you have to deal with this
decision. Your schools can no longer maintain this contract and still pursue excellence
in education. Channel One is too expensive. Oh, it's free to your teachers, but your board
makes the children pay the rent on the television equipment. Yes, you are renting the TV
sets from Channel One and that doesn't make any sense. Not when you have to sacrifice
an hour of school time each week--forever. Your board should vote to end the Channel
One contract. Your board attorney should write a letter to Channel One stating that the
contract is over. (12/6/02, p. 1).These examples and others like them underscore the
ability of local schools to reevaluate decisions enacted by previous well-intentioned
school leaders.
Of concern however, is that there is not enough reevaluating going on by current
school administrators. School principals ought to be leading efforts to ask serious
questions about Channel One's presence in their schools as well as other electronic
marketing efforts in their buildings. They should not be leaving this issue to be
examined by consumer groups, concerned parents, and members of higher education.
Bogue (1985) in his discussion of moral commitment of school leaders, applies Alinsky's
proposed paths to morality by stating,
There is no single road to justice and morality. There is a low road to
morality. We do what is right because we fear an audit that will check our
actions. We do what is right because we fear the reprisal of those whom we
may cheat. But there is a high road to morality as well. We do what is right
because we care about both principle and people. We do what is right
because we have compassion. (p. 147)
School leaders are positioned to do what is right for kids. Matters of principle and
compassion are only as relevant as a school leader's ability to link thought with action.
8
With respect to electronic marketing in schools, schools must show compassion for
young people and act-as a matter of principle.
Sponsored Educational Materials
U
nsolicited materials developed by well-funded outside interests are flooding
schools, which must fall back on their own resources to evaluate the
materials due to the decentralized nature of curriculum approval. The abundance of
unscreened materials may weaken academic programs and undermine democratic
control of the curriculum (Molnar, 2001 in Larson, 2001). These "unsolicited materials"
referred to commonly as sponsored educational materials, is a third area of concern for
opponents to commercialism in schools. The central argument is that corporations are
interfering with the educational process, the best interests of students, and the goal of
encouraging democratic civic values. Molnar (in Larson, 2001, p. 7) argues that
children, "are increasingly being approached as consumers rather than learners and
citizens."
When the Consumers Union collected and evaluated examples of these materials,
it found that 80 percent contained biased or incomplete information, and promoted a
viewpoint that favored consumption of the sponsor's product or service or otherwise
favored the company and its economic agenda (What is Commercialism, 10/7/02).
Molnar (in Larson, 2001, p. 7) provides statistics in a different form offering that, "Since
1990, press citations of sponsored educational materials increased by 1,875 percent."
Even more alarming, in Stewart (3/29/02), Molnar also points out that, "Some schools'
curricula include corporate-sponsored lessons about the environmental benefits of the
oil, timber, nuclear and plastics industries (p. 1)."
Another attempt by corporations to invade our classrooms is through obvious
commercial public relations materials. In these cases, a company provides a school with
instructional materials in an effort to build brand recognition and consumer loyalty. For
example, McDonald's has students design a McDonald's restaurant. A Shell Oil video
teaches students that the way to experience nature is to drive there – stopping to fuel up
your Jeep at a Shell gas station along the way (Sponsored Educational Materials,
10/7/02). A more shameful example in the same article on The Center for Commercial
Free Public Education < http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/index.html > website describes
how, "Some teachers were duped by Exxon's lesson plan about the healthy, flourishing
9 Commercialism in schools
wildlife in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which showed beautiful eagles, frolicking sea
otters, and sea birds in their habitat."
As corporations continue to provide schools with materials that claim to offer
educational content, school leaders must ask themselves where to draw the line.
Without a curricular review process, principals and teachers are left to make their
decision to include the material based on a subjective opinion about its value. This
typically involves one person's opinion. In my school, I am aware that these materials
have been provided to our teachers. In many cases, I am able to screen the material first
prior to sharing with the teacher. When I speak with the teacher, I always encourage
them to review all aspects of the materials and to provide it as a supplement to their
lesson, not as the main source of information. It is precisely here where school leaders
find themselves faced with a choice between two important ethical educational
leadership actions. Do leaders defer to teachers to determine content or exercise
administration's responsibility to screen material that is outside the curriculum? On the
one hand, screening all corporate sponsored material prior to its inclusion into the
classroom may be considered a morally defensible strategy for combating this form of
commercialism in schools. But at what expense to academic freedom, if such freedom
exists any longer in high schools? The materials that make it into the classrooms
without my knowledge are what troubles me and ought to concern any school
administrator who desires to have a handle on the curriculum being covered in their
classrooms.
Molnar and Morales (2000) remind us of a very important reality as we consider
this issue.
Commercial activities now shape the structure of the school day, influence the
content of the school curriculum, and determine whether children have access to a
variety of technologies. Moreover, the number of citations indicate an emerging trend
for marketers to bundle advertising and marketing programs in schools across a variety
of media and thus gain a dominant position in the schoolhouse market (p.43). As we
wrestle with issues related to proliferation of this type of activity, school leaders are
called to give more thoughtful consideration to
The effort to more fully integrate the schoolhouse into corporate marketing plans
by securing control over as many school-based advertising media as possible may
10
be the trend to watch during the next decade. We can expect schools to serve as
launchpads for marketing campaigns that resemble high-profile movie releases,
complete with multiple tie-ins for a variety of products and services aimed at
children and their families. (p.44)
The Consumers Union supports the Student Privacy Protection Act, a bill in Congress
that would require parents to give informed consent before companies can collect
information on school children. There are other attempts under way at various levels of
federal and state government, but the leaders on this issue have to be school leaders on
the local level with the assistance of school board members and other influential
members of the school's community. The reality is that education is suffering with this
type of corporate involvement in the classroom.
Reaction and Action
F
orty years ago Jules Henry (1963) provided a degree of clarity on the issue of
commercialism in his discussion of advertising as a philosophical system. He
writes,
Advertising is an expression of an irrational economy that has depended
for survival on a fantastically high standard of living incorporated into the
American mind as a moral imperative. Yet a moral imperative cannot itself
give direction; there must be some institution or agency to constantly
direct and redirect the mind and emotions to it. This function is served for
the high-rising living standard by advertising which, day and night, with
increasing pressure reminds us of what there is to buy; and if money
accumulates for one instant in our bank accounts, advertising reminds us
that it must be spent and tells us how to do it. (p.45)
Henry is not personally endorsing commercialism as an ethical principle, but only
pointing out that the broad American culture has raised this norm to a moral good. As
such, the school leaders are placed in a dilemma between a moral imperative endorsed
by the general American cultural norm of commercialism and a deeper, more justified
moral imperative to protect students from the hidden and non-educative practices of
corporations. But while this must be an acknowledged dilemma, I want to argue that
11 Commercialism in schools
school leaders have a higher moral obligation to limit the amount of time that a child
will feel pressured to buy or participate in some form of consumer activity.
Examples of reactions to this issue are many. Duncan Waite provides one very
compelling reaction to the existence of commercialism in schools with his editorial in
the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman (9/20/99),
School's bottom line
A September 11 editorial, See Spot Run for Cola and Chips, on
commercialization in schools was right on target. However, in my opinion,
it didn't go far enough. Commercialization has permeated nearly every
aspect of schooling in America, including how we think about schools.
More and more, schools are run like corporations, with rewards and
sanctions tied to a school's bottom line. The bottom line is to increase
achievement test scores, the quantifiable measure most widely used to
judge schools success (or failure). Vouchers, school-choice plans and
privatization, as examples, along with the use to which standardized test
scores are put, are meant to make schools responsive to market forces.
This, it is thought, would better education for all. But schools are not
corporations. They are not businesses. Schools are a public trust, more like
public parks and libraries than they are like corporations. Schools have a
loftier mission than simple increase in the bottom line. Schools and
education should contribute to an informed citizenry. Commercialism,
corporate language and thinking obscure this, and actually run contrary to
this ideal.
Waite declares schools a part of a public trust and speaks of a mission far above the
"bottom line." Schools leaders are the gatekeepers of that public trust. A community
wants to believe that decisions made regarding the well being of their children are
rooted in what is indeed best for students and not based on the accumulation of profits.
It is important to point out that the examples of commercialism examined here
(corporate-sponsored materials, Channel One, and exclusive pouring rights agreements)
are only one aspect of the larger issue of corporatization in America and in public
schools. Boyles (1998) uses computers and in general, technology, as an example to
address the issue that schools possess cultural capital in the institutionalized state.
12
"Computers," he argues, "are the (cultural) artifacts for economic production that are
institutionalized in schools (i.e. surrogate training sites for corporations)" (p.51).
Technology in its many forms, but namely computers as a tool, are fixtures in American
schools.
Boyles points out that students "are on the receiving end of vast expenditures of
(a) money for technology, and (b) time given over to talk of a future century and the
pervasiveness, nay, requirement, that 'technology-skills' will play in their employment in
that future (p. 51)." "Couple this process of institutionalization," he cautions us, "with
the material manifestation of computers in classrooms, and the picture becomes more
clear (p. 51)." The premise then is to promote consumer materialism through the use of
technology. As Boyles sums up, "The computer, as cultural artifact, is a highly valued
and valuable cultural-capital commodity (p. 51)."
Another issue which troubles Boyles and that has produced much debate in
education circles is the standards/national testing movement. In his discussion of
teachers as "critically transitive," Boyles (1998, p. 173-4) argues that these connected
movements "are far-removed industrialized (or technologized) engines that drive
teacher roles and responsibilities." As a direct result of allowing corporations to set the
national agenda for standardization, testing, and education goals, teachers and students
argues Boyles, "(they) are objectified … and evaluated in terms of GNP, international
test comparisons, and workforce readiness (p. 174)." "Teachers are pawns," he goes on,
"in such an economistic, quasiscientific game of power and money played by politicians
and businesspeople in search of 'the' model for ultimate corporate profit (p. 174)."
Boyles' insights broaden the area of concern for educational leaders and call for closer
examination by those closest to the daily life and work of schools.
In terms of action, The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education (Take
Action, 10/7/02) suggests seven ways to fight commercialism in your school district.
While these read as though they are more for concerned citizens, perhaps parents, they
can also be used by building level administrators as they attempt to get their boards of
education to see the proverbial light. They are 1) walk through your school and look for
sponsored educational materials, posters, textbooks with company names and ads,
Channel One, soda machines and use this information to show your local school board;
2) write an editorial to the editor of your local paper and explain why you are opposed to
13 Commercialism in schools
commercialism in public education; 3) create a petition; 4) work to get rid of Channel
One; 5) hold a public forum or teach-in and invite school board members, teachers,
students, community members, and local organizations to come and discuss the issue;
6) create a committee to draft a district-wide commercialism policy; and 7) identify
allies and build a community of support. These suggestions represent fairly basic
approaches that are attainable for any motivated individual. In the high profile cases
where district-wide commercialism policies have been enacted (Seattle, WA, for
example), the initial groundwork was laid with efforts such as the ones listed by the
CCFPE.
Parent/Teacher Associations are great vehicles to launch efforts to compel school
administrators to reevaluate the proliferation of commercialism in local schools.
Charlotte Baecher (10/7/02) suggests four steps a PTA can take to help protect schools:
1) advocate for adequate public funding for schools, rather than reverting to fundraising
to shore up insufficient public funds; 2) enlighten school officials of the problem and
advocate that the school develop non-commercial guidelines; 3) help schools find noncommercial alternatives to product- or advertising-based programs; 4) support curricula
that prepare kids to handle commercialism themselves. Similar in some respects to the
CCFPE's suggestions, Baecher is somewhat different as it includes a call for all citizens
to be advocates for equitable public funding.
In Ohio for example, the state legislature understands that districts have become
very creative in generating needed dollars to run programs. Therefore, they are less
compelled to come up with a comprehensive school funding reform proposal. However,
in light of the most recent ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court which essentially
reiterates the message to the legislators that they must change the funding formula, now
is the perfect opportunity for those concerned about the presence of commercialism in
schools to join the discussion. All anti-commercialism in schools advocates need to be
pushing their state governments to revamp the method by which their schools are
providing the necessary resources to educate their students.
2001 Victories
T
he Center for Commercial-Free Public Education website (10/7/02)
provides a listing of some of the victories, big and small, and actions against
commercialism in schools from across the country in 2001. A sampling includes:
14
Liano, CA – Parent Robert Williams successfully pressured his school
district in High Desert to stop their mandatory school assemblies that
teach students to sell brand name products.
Cherry Creek, CO – Youth Advisory Board member Nick Salter has
performed a walk-through of his high school and is getting other students
together to fight commercialism.
Hobe Sound, FL – School Board member M. L. Hearst succeeded in
kicking Channel One out of his district.
New York, NY – Due to continuous pressure from parents and community
members, the New York City Board of Education has removed advertising
to students from a laptop computer for every student initiative.
Charleston, SC – Parent Kate Young convinced a district committee to
decide against a proposal to hire an outside consulting company to pursue
"partnerships" with corporate advertisers.
Many similar examples are provided across the country primarily, it appears, in urban
schools districts. I provided the above examples in an effort to identify efforts in districts
closer in size to my own (less than 2,000 students). It is interesting to note that in zero
of the examples provided on the website, did a school administrator initiate the action
which resulted in an eradication of an element of commercialism in the district. In
several examples, school board members appear to have initiated the action. It would
seem that members of the concerned citizenry are taking steps in these districts to affect
change. School board members, however, are in a unique situation to affect desired
change by asking appropriate questions of school administrators and, if need be,
applying necessary pressure to motivate them to take necessary action.
With regard to commercialism on my turf, my school district has an exclusive
"pouring rights" contract with 7UP Dayton to provide soft drinks and vending machines.
In the early 90's, a contract with Channel One was signed and is still provided to our
15 Commercialism in schools
students every day. These two examples of commercialism are a place to start for me as I
begin the process of getting members of my school community to understand this
problem. With the final year of both contracts being next year, I may have a unique
opportunity to end some long-standing relationships without much trouble.
While our 7UP and Channel One contracts represent the most visible and obvious
presence in our school system, it is the existence and proliferation of corporate
sponsored materials and programs that concern me as well. These examples are popping
up in the classrooms, in my office, as an outgrowth of our affiliations with educational
technology agencies, and in student organizations to name a few. In each case, the initial
contact was made by corporations who wish to establish a relationship with schools or at
least wedge their name into educational institutions at some level.
A brief inventory of examples I have recently encountered are: the Radio Shack
Technology grant program; I investigated our relationship with Kmart and why I am
receiving checks from them (I discovered that a predecessor signed us up for a program
whereby we distribute Kmart cards to students, parents, and staff and as they spend
money at Kmart, the school benefits. For the record, the last check was $18 based upon
$4,300 spent!); lesson plans and classroom activities provided by companies from
MicroSoft, Exxon, Ford Motor Company, and Pizza Hut, and a questionnaire to be given
to our athletes by Wendy's. I struggle with whether or not to excuse Radio Shack for
their desire to support teachers with funding to support the use of educational
technology. It does not strike me as offensive as the efforts by Wendy's to profile young
student-athletes. However, after examining this issue extensively over the past several
weeks, I do not see a moral difference between the two. I do not see a moral difference
between awarding a teacher with corporate-sponsored financial support for teaching
and our soft drink contract with 7UP.
The question is what I do from here? I believe I have made it relatively clear that I
see this as a moral issue and that I do plan to work to eradicate commercialism in my
school. I recognize though that I will be challenged and that the process will not be easy.
Molnar and Reaves (2001) call "for a serious, systematic look at the impact that
commercialism is having on the nature of teaching and learning and on the ability of
schools to achieve high levels of academic performance (p. 78)." All school leaders
should take such a look.
16
References
Baecher, C. (2002, October 7). PTA's and commercialism in schools [On-line].
Available: http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Community
Corner/baecherspeech.html
Bogue, G. (1985). The enemies of leadership: Lessons for leaders in education.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Bowman, D. H. (October, 2001). States consider forbidding snack, soda sales
[12 paragraphs]. Education Week [On-line serial]. Available:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Articles/HealthUpdate_100301.htm
Boyles, D. (1998). American education and corporations: The free market goes to
School. New York, NY: Garland.
Channel One (2002, October 7). Find out why people across the country want
Channel One out of their classrooms [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/channelonetext.html
Ervin, E. (November, 2001). Schools expel Channel One; new policy also limits
Ads, logos [22 paragraphs]. Seattletimes.com [On-line serial]. Available:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Articles/schools.expel.channelone.
htm
Fallow, J. (2002, December 6). Commercialism in the schools [On-line]. Available:
http://dev.wce.wwu.edu/depts/it/tk444/geny02/externalforces/jfmain.htm
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hammett, K. (2001). Cashing in on kids. Designer/builder, 8 (4), 27-31.
Hardy, L. (1999, October). The lure of school marketing [45 paragraphs].
asbj.com [On-line serial]. Available:
http://www.asbj.com/199910/1099coverstory.html
Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Random House.
Just some of the victories & actions from across the country in 2001 (2002, October 7).
[On-line]. Available: http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/index.html
Larson, K. (2001, Fall). Commercialism in schools [38 paragraphs]. ERIC, 18, 1.
Available: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/Fall_2001.html
17 Commercialism in schools
Metrock, J. (2002, December 6). Alabama School Boards–Removing Channel One
[On-line]. Available: http://www.obligation.org/alabamaboardmember.html
Molnar, A., & Morales, J. (2000). Commercialism@schools. Educational
Leadership, 55 (2), 39-44.
Molnar, A. & Reaves, J. A. (2001). Buy me! Buy me! Educational Leadership, 59
(2), 74-80.
Sponsored Educational Materials (2002, October 7). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/commercialism.html
Stewart, K. (2002, March 29). Educator blasts schools' consumer culture
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Articles/educator_blast.htm
Take Action! (2002, October 7). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/action.html
Waite, D. (1999, September 20). Schools bottom line [Letter to the editor].
Austin (TX) American-Statesman, p.85.
What is Commercialism in Schools? (2002, October 7). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ecksjay.com/ccfpe/commercialism.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Goodney is principal of Preble-Shawnee High School, Camden, Ohio.
The Initiative Anthology:
An Electronic Publication about
Leadership, Culture, & Schooling
www.muohio.edu/InitiativeAnthology/