Date:  October 13, 1998

To: ICCSD Board Meeting Minutes File, October 13, 1998

From:  Board Member Nicholas Johnson

Re:  Commercialism in Schools


Note: This document was circulated among Board members in a prior form. It was subsequently entered into the formal minutes of the next regular Board meeting, October 13, 1998. It is made available here as a convenience for any interested citizen, whether in or outside of the District.  -- NJ

The purpose of this memo is to state and record my position regarding commercialization in our schools, and the policies proposed to deal with those issues (1003.3, 1003.4, 1003.5, 1005), without taking up additional time at this Board meeting.

Before formulating a policy I think we need (1) a detailed and current inventory of our own schools' full range of commercialization, (2) a review of what other districts, and education policy folks, have to say on the subject and then (3) formulate policies with sufficiently precise standards to provide guidance to administrators and teachers, and (4) protections for students, consistent with proposed Code 1003.4's recommendation that "School[s] . . . should not become environments wherein students are subjected to manipulation for commercial purposes."

1. Inventory.  Before we can adopt commercialization policies we need to know the range and depth of our current practices.  Indeed, there is some reason to believe that the business community would also welcome such an inventory.  The survey would presumably include the details regarding: commercial products sold in schools, advertising of products, teaching materials provided by business interests (especially if the content relates to their interests), "free" supplies from business sources, advertising in school publications or at events, athletic endorsements/tie-ins, corporate logos on kids hats and shirts, etc.

2. Research.  Wouldn't it be useful on an issue like this to know what others are doing and recommending: school districts in Iowa, and elsewhere; any research by academics, agencies, and others regarding adverse effects of commercialization -- or curricular antidotes?  Why not see what's out there?  In this regard, see the other document I am submitting for this evening’s minutes, "Board Functions: Some Thoughts for the October 12, 1998, ICCSD Board Retreat," Oct. 10, 1998, pp. 1-4.

3. Lack of standards.  Putting aside the repetitions and internal inconsistencies for the moment, the proposed policies provide few if any standards.  They forbid anything "illegal" – something, one would hope, that would go without saying – but aside from that they all turn on words like "discretion," "discreetly," "caution," "appropriate," and "reasonable" –  scarcely much guidance.  Nor do they use a language that includes sufficient illustrations of the subject matter the drafters found troublesome to provide much insight to what the policies are really getting at.  Once we have found out what our practices and potential problems are we can be a little more precise – and, thereby, helpful.

4. Commercial-free zones.  Proposed Code 1003.4 recognizes that "School[s] . . . should not become environments wherein students are subjected to manipulation for commercial purposes."  I agree.  Do we know enough to, are we willing to, draft policy to make that goal a reality?

A Superficial Overview of Others' Concerns

Let me simply share with you some of what I have come upon as a result of a five or ten-minute Web search.  Obviously, it does not represent the kind of "research" I am talking about.

I was not looking for material on one "side" or another; nor do I believe I have removed any relevant contrary views from what I found and quote below.  This is all I found.  It's just that the facts seem to be (based on this very limited look at the literature) that a significant number of independent commentators have considerable concern about the growing commercialism in our schools.

It is a concern that I think we would do well to heed and reflect in the form of specific standards and prohibitions in our policies.


Here are some excerpts from a piece by Dr. Ellen Wartella, Dean and Walter Cronkite Regents Chair in Communication, University of Texas:

"20 years ago about two-thirds of all marketing dollars went into advertising.  Today 80% of marketing dollars go into other types of promotions.  Both of these new marketing strategies are particularly relevant to the issue of the commercialization of the American public schools."

"In short, American schools have become another marketing venue for companies . . ..  In turn, the schools become partners in the increasing commercialization of American youth."

"What is clear is that many parents and even school officials have not taken on the debate about these new practices for commercializing childhood."


The following quotes are from a piece by Amy Aidman, Children's Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "Advertising in the Schools" (published in the ERIC Digests funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education):

"Many advertisers view children as a uniquely profitable three-in-one market . . ..  Each year, elementary school children have an estimated $15 billion of their own money . . ..  Children influence at least $160 billion in parental purchases."

"Linking their products to educational goals, advertisers have reached into the schools by sponsoring such activities as [literacy, reading, anti-drug] . . . while rewarding students . . . with coupons for products and free meals."

"[C]ommercialism in schools has recently skyrocketed and has spurred public debate."

[Quoting James McNeal, Kids as Customers], "In-school advertising is being talked about more, and in a more critical manner, because of the increasing amounts of it . . . [that] takes an endless number of forms: scoreboards and billboards in athletic areas, posters, pamphlets, book covers, lesson plans, films, and vending machines."

Consumers Union has taken a stand against commercialism in schools.  It "supports the notion of schools as 'ad-free zones.'" There is a "Consumers Union Education Services" (CUES) organization that has published, among other things, "Selling America's Kids" and "Captive Kids."  It identifies: in-school ads, ads in classroom materials and programs, corporate-sponsored educational materials and programs, and corporate-sponsored contests and incentive programs.

It recommends that (we) "review all sponsored materials and activities" (what I have called an "inventory"), "reject the notion that it is ethical to bring advertising into the schools to provide materials or funds to bolster dwindling budgets," and "begin the teaching of media literacy in elementary school to help educate children to be critical readers of advertising, propaganda, and other mass-mediated messages . . .."

Ms. Aidman concludes: "With the expanding presence of advertising targeted to younger and younger children, schools have become involved in serving up students as captive audiences to advertisers . . . [thereby threatening] the integrity of education in a democracy."

She then cites, "for more information" books and articles (which I have not read) with titles such as, "Hucksters in the Classroom:  A Review of Industry Propaganda in Schools," "Making Schools Ad-Free Zones," "Schooled for Profit," the two CUES pieces mentioned above and the Ellen Wartella piece, "The Commercialization of Youth.


My very brief search also turned up a "National Institute for Consumer Education" resource list for teaching "Advertising and Young Consumers." There are, apparently, a significant number of books, videos and other teaching materials that are available for this purpose.

Finally, I might note, from this week's Education Week a news report that "Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's latest project aims to counteract advertisers' influence over children, and it will be keeping an eye on schools. . . . The group will monitor . . . and campaign against relationships between schools and businesses.  The nonprofit group will lobby against districts . . .."

I have only late this afternoon come upon a hard-copy offprint of Henry A. Giroux, "Education Incorporated?", Educational Leadership, Oct. 1998, p. 12.  Professor Giroux is Waterbury Chair Professor in Secondary Education, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University.

Some quotes include:

"From the management of public schools to the content of the curriculum, corporate values threaten the democratic purposes of public education."

 "[S]chools increasingly offer the not-so-subtle message to students that everything is for sale."

"Growing up corporate has become a way of life for American youth."

The author provides a "References" section to 18 books and articles.

[19981018]