Introductory Article from Newspaper
Rocky Mountain News (RM) - SATURDAY NOVEMBER 12, 1994 COLORADO SPRINGS - A strapped school district has sold advertising space on everything from gyms to school buses. El Paso County School District uses the ad revenue to buy books, lab equipment and other supplies the city can't provide. "Go for your dreams! Stay in school! - Reilly Buick-GMC Truck" reads an ad inside Palmer High School's gym. Dozens of other signs are plastered on school hallways. Students at Fremont Elementary School travel in bright yellow buses painted with 7-Up ads. Burger King ads, designed with the help of students, are painted on other district buses. Another ad, bought by the Public Service Co. of Colorado, features the utility's Louie the Lightning Bug, a cartoon character who advises children to stay away from electrical lines. Jay Engeln, Palmer's principal, and a handful of school administrators came up with the idea.
Euan's Article
I see myself some years ago going to school. On the side of the buses there were advertisements. The cars all carried a manufacturers mark. The sweetshop was bursting with bright colours to attract my attention and there were advertisements plastered all over the window. Or at home watching TV, seeing advertisements for everything from laxatives to swords, guns, war comics. I remember police shows, war films, boxing, wrestling, (very) violent cartoons, terrible social behaviour and atrocious eating habits. I could never go out, or stay in without being exposed to advertising, the things I see on television were and are largely dictated by what draws an audience and therefore advertising revenue. Childhood was not a period sheltered from the evils of advertising and deliberate thought control (don't we go to school precisely so society can start to control the way our minds develop?).
But what about direct influence of advertisers over children in the school setting and of school and educational priorities? Whether the possible conflict is serious depends on how much revenue comes from how many advertisers, and what they want to advertise. I wouldn't like to see schools entirely funded by one or two private organisations, that is unacceptable. However why not have some input from advertising, just restrict it to local companies, to small scale school by school sponsorship, and exclude system wide sponsorship by large corporations. A process of approval by a parents committee, the approval of the local education board would be good safeguards.
We just have to keep it in mind that advertisers and sponsors are privileged to have the right to peddle their wares via children. If they begin to behave in ways that are not acceptable outside the school then then we can refuse to renew the contracts. If what they do is acceptable outside school but not inside then we are hypocrites, and our children can't help but know it.
Paul's Article
The goal of advertising is to create a desire for a product where no such desire previously exists. By strategically identifying groups such as single women and elderly couples, and by taking advantage of the milieu of neuroses and life struggles that accompany membership in these demographic "targets", advertisers strive to convince us that their products can enhance our lives and ease our uniquely personal struggles.
Do we want our children to be targeted in this way? True, advertising surrounds us in our daily lives and in the lives of our children, but most billboards and television ads target more affluent consumers -- how much spending power does an 11 year old have relative to a young urban professional? By entering our schools advertisers would gain access to a rarity in the corporate world: an extremely demographically specific, and particularly captive audience.
Decisions about the appropriateness of ads in schools could be dangerously influenced by the economic consequences of relying on funds from advertisers for the maintenance of educational standards. If schools became too dependent on funds from advertisers, it would be much more difficult to convince Mr. and Mrs. Smith that their young son Billy wouldn't be able to take an advanced science course because of a sexist ad on a locker room wall. Suddenly that sexist ad isn't so sexist after all. Conversely, the evolution of educational curriculae could be dangerously curtailed by economically powerful advertisers who don't approve of new Grade 2 books featuring Jack and his young friend James, who has two mommies.
I commend the school administrators for doing something about the appalling state of educational funding today... but money rarely comes with no strings attached. If the businesses buying ad space were truly interested only in being good citizens of the community, they wouldn't need to display any ads at all - they would simply donate the money. What we need to remember is that business is about give and take. Before schools take money from advertisers, school officials and particularly parents must stop and make the effort to identify exactly what it is that they are giving the advertisers in return... or more importantly, what exactly are the advertisers taking from our children?
Euan's Follow-Up
As far as advertisers influence goes, so long as we don't let our schools become dependent on advertising revenue for their basic needs I don't see a big problem. We simply have to keep a clear view of our priorities and responsibilities, and be ready and willing to say "no" where we have a problem. Our society (unfortunately in my view) is built on individual profit, and unless that changes we cannot rely on charity for anything. By and large business is not going to give money without getting something for it (be it a tax break, publicity, or whatever) any more than the majority of private citizens, that is unfortunate but there it is. Selling advertising space in schools is a logical step for our society. If we have a problem with it we should be reexamining some of our basic motivations and ethics and not where exactly we should limit our attempts to profit from one another.
Paul's Follow-Up
Schools are controlled environments whose goals lie with the public good. In the name of educating our children, the government (which is ultimately accountable to the general public), decides what our children will and will not be exposed to by the school system. Companies like Pepsi and Burger King exist solely to make money for their shareholders. They have no interest whatsoever in the public good (clearly we would be a healthier society without the Whopper). We have to remain wary of the purported good intentions of these business enterprises, especially when considering inviting them into our children's schools.
A final note: Instead of convincing concerned parents and teachers that the benefits gained by letting Burger King put advertisements on school buses outweigh the possible downfalls, shouldn't we be spending our time and energy trying to convince our governments that our children's educational system needs more support from them, and indeed from us all? After all, this entire debate would be rendered moot if only we afforded the same respect to our children's right to a decent education that we do to the rights of big businesses like Pepsi and Burger King to put a Whopper on the lunchroom wall of every school in the nation.
Euan Taylor, Vancouver, Canada
Paul Gribble, Montreal, Canada
ertaylor@unixg.ubc.ca