Schools shouldn’t sell students to pay for education

By Daily Bruin Staff

Jan. 24, 2001 9:00 p.m.

  Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi is a
third-year history and American literature and culture student.
Speak your mind and e-mail her at shirinv@ucla.edu.
Click Here
for more articles by Shirin Vossoughi

Coca Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper signs gleam along the walkways.
The latest Nike shoes are displayed in bright colors. M&Ms
appear at every corner. Must be a shopping center or mall, right?
Or a sports arena? Nope. Welcome to elementary school.

It’s no news that America’s public schools are
strapped for money. In some areas, there are no supplies, books or
even desks for classrooms teeming with students. The problem of
educational funding has plagued our country for decades. But the
most recent “solution” may prove to be its own
catastrophe.

Corporations, such as Coca Cola, are “sponsoring”
needy public schools in return for quick profits and access to a
vulnerable, target market: kids. Two hundred and forty school
districts in 31 states have sold exclusive rights to one of three
big soda companies. Out of necessity, schools are signing marketing
deals with soda companies as well as other corporations. What do
their rights include? Access to students as life-time consumers
waiting to be seduced.

As Ronnie Cohen’s article “Schoolhouse Rot”
(Jan. 10, Mother Jones) points out, a Colorado Springs school gave
Coca Cola exclusive rights to 30,000 students for over $8 million
dollars in 10 years. The catch is that students are required to
knock back at least 70,000 cases of Coke products in one of the
first three contract years. Forget about ADD, nervousness,
insomnia, lack of concentration or long-term effects such as
obesity and osteoporosis. As long as the money’s rolling in
and kids are getting hooked, it’s all good.

This may benefit big corporations, but not parents and teachers,
who are standing up against commercialization in schools. As one
Seattle, Wash., parent expressed at a meeting regarding these
sponsorships, “Schools should not be selling my child as a
consumer to corporations.”

  Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin Coke isn’t
the only corporation jumping at the chance to subtly entice
students across the country. Brand names are popping up everywhere
in the classroom. Mcgraw-Hill, one of the country’s top
textbook companies, teaches students math by asking students to
calculate the cost of a pair of Nikes or to count out M&Ms.
Guess who foots the bill for this type of advertising? We do, as
textbooks are state-subsidized and payed for by taxpayers.

And not to worry, even tech companies are scrambling to be part
of the trend.

Channel One is a TV station that now broadcasts to over 8
million middle and high school students each day. It is the single
largest form of commercialism in schools and Channel One’s
own advertisement reads, “We have the undivided attention of
millions of teenagers for 12 minutes a day, that might be a world
record.” The ad fails to mention that two of those minutes
are commercials by McDonald’s, Nintendo and Procter &
Gamble. Students are required to watch Channel One in the classroom
nine out of 10 school days in exchange for much-needed TVs, VCRs
and satellite dishes.

So what are the detrimental effects of this new advertising
strategy? While companies are scrambling to build brand loyalty at
younger and younger ages, kids are being trained as consumers.
Never mind the importance of teaching young students to analyze,
think for themselves and be critical. It’s much better to
develop their skills as shoppers and stress the importance of
consumerism.

Students are not only affected mentally by such bombardment of
ads, but also physically at an age in which their bodies are most
vulnerable, as the Coke example clearly demonstrates. How can we
expect students to learn when they are wired on caffeine? The
Consumer’s Union additionally reveals one Nutrasweet
“Total Health Guide” passed out to middle-schoolers
urging them to consume Nutrasweet instead of sugar to lose
weight.

As the lines blur between advertisement and education, we must
ask the question: who owns our schools? If it is the students,
teachers, parents and the community, then big business has no place
inside their doors. If a company funds most of the school’s
supplies and programs, where is the separation between education
and propaganda?

Imagine a 10th grader researching sweatshops at a Nike-sponsored
school and wanting to start a campaign in her community against
Nike’s irresponsibility. If schools are supported financially
by socially careless companies, kids are taught that such actions
are OK and not to stand up against them.

But hey, maybe that’s a part of the plan. If kids learn
brand loyalty from the beginning, there is less chance
they’ll grow up to question the activities of companies that
put profits over people.

Companies that really want to help education can do so
responsibly by providing funding in other ways, such as
scholarships. But a close look at new businesses attempting to ease
the way for corporations to advertise in schools exhibits their
real intent. One such company, Lifetime Learning Systems,
advertises, “Now you can enter the classroom through
custom-made learning materials created with your specific marketing
objectives in mind.”

A similar tone is taken by Pepsi’s proposition to school
administrators: “Partnership with Pepsi will not only enhance
your students’ lives, but also offer the greatest opportunity
to generate significant student revenues.” In addition, the
fear that Cecile Andrews points out in her article “Schools
and Commercialism” (Center for a New American Dream) is that
in the near future, legislators might actually start expecting
schools to raise funds in such a way. Why spend tax money on
education when some schools have already gone out and made deals
for millions with Coca Cola? God forbid we take any money from our
ballooning defense fund to keep public education public.

At the heart of his matter lies the source of information that
shapes our education. If textbooks, videos and educational supplies
are made by big corporations, I fear that the freedom to question
and be critical will take second place to the almighty dollar, even
more so than it already has.

Evidence of this trend is manifest in our very own university
system. Our regents amount to little more than businessmen and
women investing our money in different stocks and business. And I
thought their job actually had to pertain to education.

As Lily Jamili reported in her article, “Regents to
Consider Divestments” (Daily Bruin News, Jan. 12), over the
past few months, the regents have been investing in two index
funds, both of which have come under attack for social
irresponsibility including careless oil drilling or the use of
sweatshops in developing countries.

What’s to say this has nothing to do with the way our
education is shaped? It’s these same regents who have a say
in our curriculum and repeatedly raise our fees while investing our
money away.

If our so-called research institution is funded by corporations
that profit from the problems plaguing our world, how are we to
gain an education that gives us the tools to make it better?

It’s no different than Nike shoes in third grade math
books. The brand names have already won in many ways, making us
believe the answers to everything lie in making and spending money.
It’s up to us to prove that they don’t.

COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
Related Posts