The New York Times looks at the now-more-common trend toward commercialism in schools (On School Buses, Ad Space for Rent) just as Mr. Curious, an anonymous Corporate Babysitter reader, responds to my posts about advertising in schools with the following question:

We [parents at my child's school] are currently seeking alternative revenue sources for next year and I wanted to reach out to you and a few others to generate opinions on what options are out there for parents who want the world for their school and children.

Mr. Curious agrees that some ads don’t belong in schools (he lists Red Bull, soda, video games, candy, name brand clothing, make-up, and tanning), but asks:

But where is the harm is allowing positive, educational, smart messaged ads that encourage students to make good decisions?”

My first instinct would be to direct the reader to this lengthy post, Minnesota’s in-school advertising controversy moves to national stage, and to this letter to the editor I wrote to our local newspaper as districts here in Minnesota began considered advertising.

But Mr. Curious brings up an interesting point in his quest for answers:

. . . What I’ve found is a whole lot of commercial free advocacy groups that seem to do a lot of complaining but offer no real substantive alternatives.

Seems he has a right to be angry. Without identifying his location, he told me this story:

. . . We live in a community supported by a large corporation who would be happy to support our schools as 40% of the students parents are employed by that corporation.  As a result of advocacy groups like yours (may not be you directly) they have decided not to contribute to any advertising relating or pertaining to our schools and those throughout the country.

In a form letter their communications department told us “due to mounting pressure from anti-commercialization groups they no longer contribute to advertising affiliated or related directly or non-directly to children.”

. . . My daughter no longer has a weekly art class as a direct result of this. I ask again what business is it of yours and your organization to tell me, my school, my community, and advertisers what they can and can’t do in my community.  If you want to petition, picket, slander, and defame the businesses in your community then go right ahead – but stay out of my backyard.

Mr. Curious says that the parents have tried all sorts of fundraisers, “. . . from food and catalog campaigns, to raffles, bingo, carnivals and auctions.  The amount of time and effort needed to incorporate these events is exhausting and does little to combat our budget shortfalls.”

Mr. Curious has a point, although I think his anger is misplaced — directed at groups who want to keep commercialism out of public schools instead of at the local or federal government who, by law, should be funding his school properly.

And I have to admit there are no easy answers to this one. In fact, last week I attended a town hall meeting sponsored by the Minnesota Business Partnership where a panel discussed what’s to be done about Minnesota schools that are failing our students. Even those panel members — heads of corporations, educators, and the state commissioner of education — couldn’t come up with a “silver bullet” solution.

But one thing that they did suggest was partnering businesses with schools in order to help them run more efficiently so that more money goes into the classroom. This is a terrific way for a corporation to help schools without advertising.

That’s a start. I also came up with these ideas for Mr. Curious, which address his specific problem of the eliminated art class in his child’s school:

Arts and Culture with Target: Through partnerships with educators and arts organizations, Target helps students and their families engage in arts and cultural events nationwide.

The Dana Foundation: Supports professional development for teaching artists.

MetLife Foundation Partners in Arts Education Program: Distributes best-practices guides, makes grants and produces training institutes to support high-quality, sustainable arts education partnerships with public schools.

National Endowment for the Arts ARTS EDUCATION: Art Works

Compas School Arts Fund

National Art Education Foundation

And this just happened to come to my email inbox this week: Parenting.com’s Mom Congress School Transformation Contest. They’re offering a $20,000 prize.

Mr. Curious might also want to try his local public library to see if they offer access to the Foundation Directory Online Professional (which I have access to via Hennepin County Libraries). This is a searchable database covering over 76,600 U.S. foundations and corporate giving programs and includes descriptions of more than 324,000 associated grants.

And finally, there’s DonorsChoose.org, which connects donors to classrooms in need. If Mr. Curious puts up a request for funding for his child’s school here — and lets me know about it — I will personally donate $50 and encourage other readers to support it.

And now I’ll ask other advocacy groups who, like me, complain about commercialism in schools: Any ideas for Mr. Curious?

I’m hoping to score some points with my in-laws after being quoted in Advocates Debate Using Advertising in Schools to Raise Funds in Budget Crisis on FOX.com.

Lisa Ray, founder of the Minnesota-based group Parents for Ethical Marketing, says the biggest problem with in-school advertising is that it undermines parents’ ability to protect their children from commercial messages.

I’m really more concerned about the creation of yet another space where kids can’t get away from consumerism than I am about “protecting” them from ads.

But School Media, a company that specializes in school advertising, says ads can serve the needs of the advertiser and the education of the students. The company is working with St. Francis school district and currently awaiting nine additional pending contracts.

“All of our advertisers are under the understanding that everything has to be nutrition, education or health and wellness based. Anything outside of those parameters won’t be allowed within the school,” company spokesman Paul Miller told FoxNews.com.

Certainly sounds good. Can’t wait to see the list of advertisers who qualify.

Does it bother anyone else that public tax dollars are promoting private companies in a public space? Or that we’re selling our kids’ attention to the highest bidder?

From this weekend’s AP story Schools seek extra cash through campus ads:

The marketing push is spawning a new industry of school advertising consultants, who line up advertisers for a slice of the revenue.

“We want to bring Fortune 500 clients into school districts,” said Mickey Freeman, president and chief executive of Education Funding Partners, a Denver startup, who charges a 15 percent commission.

Advertisers are eager for a new way to reach students, consultants said. “It’s all about timing,” said Greg Meyer, president of recently formed School Media, which is pitching the locker-wrapping concept to Minnesota districts. “Five years ago, this wouldn’t be an option.”

In other words, the timing is perfect to take full advantage of the lousy state of education funding in the U.S.

These entrepreneurs will argue that advertising in schools is a win-win proposition. Sure, the ad broker wins, and the advertiser wins, and the school may get some sorely needed extra revenue.

All by taking advantage of the children — or “impressions,” in marketing-speak — who have no choice but to be there.

Who wins? Any way you look at it, it’s the kids who lose.

Are these the values of education? And is this really the kind of economy we want to embrace?

As long as public schools continue to have financial problems, there will be marketers ready to take advantage of them. The San Diego school board recently voted against allowing advertisers into their schools while here in Minnesota, the St. Francis board voted to let the locker-wrapping begin.

This story isn’t going away. I was interviewed for an Associated Press story this week and for a news story on WCCO AM radio today. I understand why districts are tempted, but allowing advertising in schools is simply not the solution. Everything taking place within the walls of a school should benefit students. Advertising benefits only the advertiser and the company selling them the space.

Advertising in public schools is back in the news as School Media’s (sic), a new Coon Rapids, Minnesota-based company, begins to pitch their in-school advertising and locker-wrapping services to area schools, including Centennial School District:

Centennial schools may soon tout everything from Crayola crayons to Nickelodeon’s “Dora the Explorer” on their lockers.

Centennial School District was scheduled to vote on using School Media’s services a week ago, but didn’t [pdf]:

Advertising in Schools: Superintendent Stremick shared the feedback received on advertising in the schools. Discussion followed. Board would like gather more feedback from community and district staff before proceeding further. No School Board action was required.

The story hit the AP wire and got the attention of FOX & Friends, a morning talk show on the FOX News Network. The producer contacted me while considering doing a segment on the topic. It’s since postponed, but she asked to contact me again “as the story develops.”

Advertising in schools, called a “sacred cow” by the National School Public Relations Association, has long been debated as schools struggle to find solutions to their funding problems. (See also: Will new Minnesota legislation invite corporate interests into the classroom?) These are especially tough times for schools, which have been put in the position of coming up with their own creative solutions to the problems created by state and federal governments and/or mismanaged school districts (depending on who you ask).

Enter corporate marketers like PepsiCo or ad brokers like the now-defunct Bus Radio or School Media’s, who bring funding solutions to schools in a seemingly win-win situation: The schools get to hire the teachers they need, and the companies make a profit. So what’s the harm?

The harm has been documented in reports by the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at Arizona State University since 1998:

It is easy to understand why marketers would target children. They influence their parents’ spending, they spend a lot of money themselves, and when they develop preferences for brands in childhood, their loyalty often lasts a lifetime. Because children spend so much time in schools, corporations pursue access to them . . . . For their part, school districts, especially those facing higher costs and shrinking budgets, often see advertising as a potential source of additional funds. Some are also attracted to advertising and marketing activities because they believe that participating in such activities demonstrates goodwill toward the business community.

. . . Overall, marketing activities in schools actively threaten high-quality education by causing psychological, health-related, and academic harm to students. Commercial activities offer children experiences primarily intended to serve the sponsors and not the children themselves; they are therefore inherently “mis-educative,” because they promote unreflective consumption rather than critical thinking and rational decision making.

Emphasis mine. Corporate advertising messages in schools are in a direct conflict with the purpose and goals of education. Watch Nickelodeon! while researchers and educators are trying to encourage kids to move away from screens and into books. Eat Doritos! and Drink Pepsi! while nutritionists and district food services are working desperately to teach good eating habits and stem obesity.

Why don’t companies pursue placing ads in front of parents, instead? District websites, for example, are probably more frequented by adults than children. Could it be that it’s more cost-effective to influence a child — with years of spending power ahead — than it is to try to persuade adults to change their buying habits?

Children are easier targets, indeed.

As a parent who advocates for ethical marketing, I often hear the counterarguments: If you don’t like the ads, just turn off your television/don’t allow that website/don’t read those magazines. And that’s just what I do.

But I can’t keep my kids out of school.

Here’s a comment from a Facebook posting I read (status is private so you’ll have to trust me) about School Media’s wrapped lockers:

Locker ads are especially offensive to me. That locker is the closest thing a student has to a personal space while at school. It’s an anchor to personal sanity in an otherwise hectic, depersonalizing environment.

CCFC’s Josh Golin offers some advice to districts considering working with in-school advertising companies in Thinking About Allowing Advertising in Your School? Do Your Homework.

More from the Commercialism in Education Research Unit:

Policy and Statutory Responses to Advertising and Marketing in Schools (2010)
Click: The Twelfth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2008-2009
At Sea in a Marketing-Saturated World: The Eleventh Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2007-2008
Adrift: Schools in a Total Marketing Environment. The Tenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2006-2007
The Ninth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2005-2006
Empty Calories: Commercializing Activities in America’s Schools (2005)
Virtually Everywhere: Marketing to Children in America’s Schools (2004)
No Student Left Unsold (2003)
What’s in a Name? The Corporate Branding of America’s Schools (2002)
Buy Me! Buy Me! (2001)
Commercialism@School.com (2000)
Cashing in on Kids (1999)
Sponsored Schools and Commercialized Classrooms (1998)

Cash-strapped schools are in the news again as many districts consider turning to in-school advertising. What’s the issue? Read this post I wrote earlier this year for Change.org, Corporate Advertising: Not the Solution to Funding Woes.

It’s not just parents who are concerned with the ethics of corporate marketing. Four St. Paul students have been named Youth Advocates of the Year by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The group, members of the Ramsey Tobacco Coalition, were honored last week in Washington, D.C.

When the students –  Brian Bell, Shanicee Dillon, Calitta Jones and Jeremiah Carter — discovered that stores in their neighborhood were selling candy cigarettes, bubble gum called “Big League Chew” and novelty lighters, they decided to do something about it. They met with St. Paul City Council Member Melvin Carter, who agreed to introduce an ordinance banning the products if the group helped: The students had to  conduct a community assessment of the problem, educate the other council members, and rally support for their presentation in the council chambers.

So they did. And as a result, the city council voted unanimously to ban the sale of candy “tobacco” products. St. Paul is the first city in the country to do so.

Since the ordinance went into effect, the youth have helped the city monitor stores for compliance and assisted in media and educational campaigns. The group currently is working to increase the tax rate for small cigars and to stop tobacco industry funding of nonprofit organizations that work with youth.

The Ramsey Tobacco Coalition works to reduce the harm caused by tobacco in Ramsey County. Members target youth access via tobacco-free school grounds policies, tobacco-free park policies, tobacco-free policies for clubs and youth-serving agencies and Ramsey County and St. Paul smoke-free workplace laws.

It took a national public health crisis. But it looks like marketing to children has finally found a home in the nation’s spotlight.

The May issue of Scientific American tackles it head-on with Underage, Overweight: The Federal Government Needs to Halt the Marketing of Unhealthy Foods to Kids. Citing the recent study that linked television commercials – not simply sitting in front of a TV but the commercials themselves – with obesity, the editors at Scientific American call on the FDA to create and enforce mandatory standards for food and beverage marketing to children.

The estimated cost of treating obesity-related ailments in adults was $147 billion for 2009. With the health care system already faltering, allowing companies to decide for themselves whether to peddle junk food to kids is a fox-and-henhouse policy this country simply cannot afford any longer.

Scientists and parents and health professionals and teachers are waking up to the idea that maybe, just maybe, corporations shouldn’t be spending billions of dollars to convince kids to want things that are bad for them.

And maybe, just maybe, since corporations are not going to stop on their own, it’s time for someone to step in.

Agencies who should be doing something now are instead putting their time and effort into advertising literacy campaigns. The FTC recently unveiled Admongo, an online game to teach kids how to decipher the very ads that shouldn’t be directed at them in the first place.  Why not just go after the advertisers? Seems the FTC was careful not to alienate any corporate campaign donors when creating Admongo, in fact, they’ve partnered with Scholastic, the single largest offender of bringing corporate advertising directly into the classroom via licensed-character-laden books. [Read also: Government Program Teaches Kids to Gaze at Ads Better]

Thanks for the help, FTC.

Yet we know the climate is changing. Our friends at Cynopsis Media recently talked to some cable network types to get their sense of what they expected to happen this year in advertising. Jackie Kulesza from Starcom:

There are a lot of factors that play into kids marketplace. There are discussions outside of our advertising world in Washington about this space and it continues to be a concern from a regulatory perspective. This administration might be bringing a different tone.

But don’t tell this to the corporations and their taxpayer subsidized marketing and advertising departments. They want to buy what Adweek is selling:

Kids want what they want when they want it. The little centers-of-our-universe can beg and plead for their essentials — toys, snacks and TV shows — with unfettered determination. Turns out that parents, television networks and marketers are working double time to oblige.

Nice. This is from Adweek’s What Kids Want: A Special Issue. It continues:

Marketers too are seeking to box out competitors by altering food products to reduce the dreaded salt, sugar and fat content in kids snacks. Are they doing too little too late to make an impact on kids health? Are their efforts just a smoke and mirrors move aimed at duping parents and kids to buy more bad food? Depends who you ask.

Asked and answered.

Image courtesy ford.