Announcing my new gig at Change.org where I’ll be writing about all things education. For my initial post I played it pretty safe and wrote what I knew: Corporate Advertising: Not the Solution to Funding Woes.

If you’re not familiar with Change.org, please take a moment to check it out. It’s a unique site highlighting specific social and environmental causes using informative blogs and petitions. There’s a fundraising component (in fact, I chose Change.org to host PEM’s fundraising well over a year ago). Plus it’s a social networking site. And it’s ad-free!

I am thrilled to be part of the Change.org team and hope you’ll stop by often. Be sure to drop me a line if there’s an education issue you’d like to see covered.

Ran across this webinar sponsored by the National School Public Relations Association:

Commercial Advertising in Schools? Take that Sacred Cow to Market!
Friday Jan. 29, 2010

Summary: Advertising has long been taboo in public education, but severe budget reductions and shortfalls now have districts rethinking their options. Learn how two innovative school systems challenged the status quo and skewered the sacred cow of “no advertising” to tap new sources of funding while promoting student success.

Moderator: Rich Bagin, APR, executive director, NSPRA

Panelists: Ken Blackstone, APR, director, communication services; and Steve Walts, Ed.D., superintendent, Prince William County Public Schools, Manassas, Va.; and Steve Valdez, director, instructional television, Weslaco (Texas) Independent School District

It’s bad enough when companies try to convince administrators that marketing in schools is inevitable — now cash-strapped districts may begin promoting it.

I hope these webinar attendees would also consider reading Click: The Twelfth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2008-2009:

As part of their efforts to create a total advertising environment, companies continue to aggressively market in school to children and youth. Advertisers now routinely blur the boundaries between editorial content and advertising in an effort to thoroughly infuse childhood with marketing messages. . . .

This year‘s report considers how marketing and advertising subtly help shape children‘s socialization into values associated with commercialism. Although commercialism isn‘t explicitly included as part of the curriculum, it is taught subtly in school environments that include marketing and advertising. As marketing messages promote particular products, they simultaneously promote values that validate and support commercialism.

Last week’s FCC report to Congress  (.pdf) on BusRadio, the company that supplies commercial radio content and advertising to a captive audience of children on school buses, found that:

– BusRadio understates the amount of its commercial content (p. 18)

– BusRadio exploits the relationship between its on-air personalities and young listeners by having its DJs pitch products directly to students (p.20).

– BusRadio’s programming and website for students fail to maintain a clear between editorial and commercial content, as required by the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (p.20 & 21).

– BusRadio’s website for parents “fails to enable parents to avoid exposure of their children to undesirable content” (p.13). 

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, who requested the report, says:

The FCC’s report provides an objective source for school districts evaluating BusRadio’s services.  We agree with the FCC that school districts should “elicit early and active involvement by parents and caregivers in any decision relating to BusRadio or similar services” (p.21). . . . We also urge state legislators to use this report to educate themselves about BusRadio, and to join New York and South Carolina in banning advertising on school buses.

CCFC encourages parents to send the FCC report directly to their school board.

Thankfully, I don’t have to worry about this in Minneapolis. Our board already has a policy in place (.pdf) to prevent commercial exploitation of children in schools:

Neither the facilities, the staff, nor the children of the schools shall be employed in any manner for advertising or otherwise promoting the interests of any commercial, political, or other non-school agency . . . .

I would argue, however, that some of the sanctioned antics of corporations like Scholastic, Target, or PepsiCo violate this policy.

One word: Insidious.

They’re not so lucky in Florida, where a school board is considering a proposal that gives a company called School Partnerships “exclusive rights to sell naming rights for school facilities and advertising to appear on district property, uniforms, Web sites or printed materials.”

Volusia County School Board members, who still are studying details of the proposal, said they understand concerns about advertising on campus but most are leaning toward giving it a try.

“We do have to look at alternatives about how we’re going to fund programs in our district,” Chairwoman Diane Smith said.

A classic argument, but I’d say one that shows a general lack of imagination.

I’ll point out this comment on the article, because it reflects my thoughts during the Obama school speech “controversy:”

Excuse me…didn’t we JUST spend an incredible amount of time, energy and airspace debating the perils of indoctrinating our children? I think listening to a motivating speech by the President of the United States is a whole lot less threatening to our kids than having them exposed to constant advertisement of unhealthy products, banks with questionable ethics, and stores that often treat their employees as just another commodity! I have never been a home school advocate, but if this comes into play, I might just have to consider keeping my kids home…not for just a day…but through the 12th grade!

A quick memo to parents concerned that their children will be a captive audience to President Obama’s speech to school children today: I understand your worries.

My full-time job is in public education, so I’ve heard from lots of folks concerned about what their children might hear.

In between calls from parents last week, I also found out that a shoe buyer from Minneapolis’ Target Corporation was hoping to make appointments to stop by some Minneapolis schools to check out what the kids are wearing on their feet.

Talk about captive. Don’t parents want to know if their children are going to be used as research subjects?

But such is nature of public schools. Some children will be a captive audience today; most children are a captive audience every day. Corporate capitalists have long had free access to children in schools, teaching them to be loyal to brands without question. That owning more will make you successful and happy. And that good Americans are good consumers.

How? Take the shoe-selling Target brand and its famous red logo. Target awards grants to help schools pay for field trip transportation. But, as part of the deal, kids return from their trips carrying a black Target-logoed backback, essentially making every one of them a walking ad.

Of course it’s not just the Target Corporation. Junior Achievement is allowed free access to your kids, as are companies like Bus Radio (to and from school),  PepsiCo (in the lunchroom), Procter and Gamble (in health class), McDonald’s (on report cards), Piper Jaffray (in high school), and Scholastic (everywhere), among many others. 

So, parents, I understand your concerns. Sanctioned messages that go against my values appear in my children’s classrooms all the time.

Thankfully, it looks like the President’s speech will be pretty innocuous.

My advice? After the speech, which they will probably hear or read at some point, talk to them. Ask them what they heard. Tell them what you think about what President Obama said. Point out any differences in the values you hold for your family and the message that they heard.

Because after all, as I’ve been told many times, you can’t shield your child from the evils of the outside world.

But you can talk to your kids. At least that’s what I do.

I discovered that Scholastic corporate communications has a blog after CCFC brought the Scholastic “book” club — complete with toys, videos, and other products — to the attention of New York Times readers.

We’ve seen the Scholastic book club flyers come home in backpacks for several years now. We manage it with two simple rules: No licensed-character books. No books with “accessories.”

And as my daughters have learned, that doesn’t leave a lot of options.

Scholastic defends their book club offerings on their blog:

I have to say, I find [CCFC's] campaign seriously misguided. I’m actually shocked that it continues to get ink.

Scholastic falls back on the argument that reluctant readers need incentives — stuffed animals, stickers, or videos — to engage in reading.

Interesting.

Whenthe Young Adult Library Services Association (a division of the American Library Association) chooses their annual list of the best books for reluctant young readers, they look at the book’s physical appearance, writing style, characters, and plot. No mention of product incentives there.

Ditto for the advice to parents of reluctant readers on Scholastic’s own website, which points to choosing age-appropriate books at the right reading level. It encourages parents to allow kids to read non-book material such as comics, magazines, or newspapers.

But this is not the same as purchasing a necklace or craft kit for your reluctant reader.

This is where, I think, Scholastic got off track. From the Sun Sentinel:

Scholastic calls that a way to “stay relevant” in the battle to engage kids’ interest. But hawking playthings in the name of education isn’t relevance. It’s a sell-out . . . .

Scholastic should be able to sell whatever it wants. But not within the walls of a school.

And if Scholastic is so concerned about reluctant readers, perhaps they should pay a little more attention to what the real experts are saying will help kids.

Only one of the ALA’s 2008 Ten Top Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Readers is available through Scholastic.

And that is why this story continues to get ink.

Take action: contact Scholastic.

Photo courtesy melissann

Minnesota’s governor and some legislators have a plan to help Minnesota school districts:

Minnesota school districts and charter schools would be required to pool their purchasing power under a plan unveiled Wednesday at the State Capitol.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and several legislators say public schools could save money on information technology, food services, supplies, equipment, transportation and other services by working cooperatively.

The money saved, according to legislators, would go directly back into the schools and not into the state budget. If approved, the state could end up giving school districts more than expected then, since K-12 education was spared from the first round of state budget cuts. 

Uh-huh. 

I’m all for efficiency and saving money by not duplicating services when we don’t need to. But reading this editorial in support of the legislation made my heart skip a beat:

It’s the sensible Costco concept applied to school budgets . . . . Under the proposal, the state’s Department of Education would create and maintain a list of preferred vendors for services, including school materials, supplies, tools, equipment, technology, food services and transportation.

Watch out: How many of those preferred vendors for school supplies will be able to bid low because their products will double as advertisements?

How can we say no to advertising on school buses if it puts more money into the classroom?

How can we say no to ads on student exams if it means teachers don’t have to pay for the copies out of their pockets?

How can we say no to chain restaurants in the lunchroom if they offer us the best deal?

And how do we say no to free classroom materials — even if they provide misleading information — if the alternative is no materials at all?

Years of inadequate federal and state funding have us backed us into a corner: We must offer up our children to corporate interests, hand over their malleabe minds so they can become brand-loyal consumers, and in exchange, we’ll get pencils and textbooks and writing paper.

I hope I’m wrong. But if I’m not — how can we say no?