Corporate business entities sponsoring education resources

[athon]

Limited funding in education is an eternal problem in most countries. Many educational institutions address this through corporate cooperation, where large companies sponsor the resourcing of schools. I normally have small problem with this, as both parties benefit with minimal compromise to ethics. Sports equipment donated by Nike or computers by Apple... no real harm done, and while schools are thereby limited in their choices of resource, this is due to not having the money in the first place.

However, I have a massive problem with an increase in corporate sponsored resourcing when it comes to some companies, especially when the resources themselves contained information that is biased. And it is a trend we will only see increase.

Read this piece (http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/beder/story.htm) to get an idea of what I mean.

How do you feel about corporations influencing classroom education? Cheaper resources are always welcome, but at what cost? Should this matter if kids are taught proper critical thinking in the first place?

Thoughts?

Athon

[Kiless]

Athon, it's too late.

I just have to look at the circumstance of my own school.

We now have a Public Relations office. Didn't exist two years ago. A 'corporate image-teacher's uniform policy' that has been developed over the last six months and is now been given to us with only two weeks to get our feedback on it. More and more 'branding' concepts arise and even our yearbook and term update broadsheets have the official 'swoosh' and slogan, which then gets entered in for national print publication competitions - the yearbook categories and newsletter categories, apparently.

The 'Community Relations Office' has appeared, instead of humble 'Registrar'. We're becoming more and more a Brand Name. We have a Values Statement which is our 'watermark' on all of our official documents. The phrase (which I can't say but essentially it's something like 'The Educational Institution For You!') has been slid into every single speech by the Principal and all official Press Releases.

IMHO? My workplace would very much welcome any packages that would have additional promotional benefits that would highlight the school - 'We Are A Part Of This Industries' Efforts! And We Get Our Students To Their Workplaces To Integrate The Real World Experiences Of Working In Corporations! Look at the details on page 2 and 3 of our broadsheet glossy!'

Yeah, it's going the way of Stephenson's Snow Crash. It's been happening for a while now and it's in the interest of the corporations to have it happen. Yes, there are benefits. And as you pointed out - there are downturns.

I mean, everyone knows one of our competitors is really 'Apple Computer Institute'. Big whoop.

Call me Hiro Protagonist...

What do I do?

I did an advertising project with my Year 9 students, Term 3 last year, getting glossy print-outs of all the adverts that the school uses and got the Head of Promotions in to the classroom to answer some questions about how the school is marketed as a Brand Name.

And then the students did their own alternative advertising campaign: highlighting what they thought were the attractive elements of the school - they chose some interesting focuses that were overlooked, like multicultural appeals, the needs of the disabled, non-TEE (non-Tertiary entrance exam) students and what is offered in terms of vocational education and the social aspect as opposed to the academic appeal.

Then they did a report to talk about how they manipulated their audience through using advertising techniques. Including how they photoshopped buildings and changed slogans and (essentially) lied about what the school had to offer.

Should have heard the 'radio ad' they did... nearly got in trouble with the teacher next door with the noises we made... :D

Athon? Feel free to let the corporate world try to invade your Science classroom.

Because it just gives me more material to take the piss out of it in the English classroom.... ;)

[Darat]

I'm a bit uncomfortable about this.

I have a few concerns - first of all what direct influence do the "corporate partners" (ug) have on what happens in the school? For example providing the schools PE equipment (with their branded stuff) is fine as long as they can't dictate what sport is played. Secondly and perhaps the most worrying is the indirect influence. For example if the school starts to think "would our corporate partner like this?" and uses that as part of its decision process or when the school starts to tailor their teaching activities to attract certain partners.

On the other hand I think it is fine for a school to save some money if they can get say Nike to provide their sports equipment, that's just being sensible. I am also OK with a school for instance tailoring certain parts of a course on chemistry to take into account that a local chemical works will take kids on a work experience course if they have studied X, that is practical and again sensible (if it is deemed for the right reasons i.e. educationally that such a placement is a good idea).

[athon]

Kiless, that's in part my concern. In some ways I think schools need to be market aware, and become somewhat more competitive. Schools that specialise and become schools of excellence in a given field can only benefit the community. I was also thinking of Stephenson's book (funny that), as well as the Simpson's episode (What is five plus one? Pepsi... You get half a mark).

People are becoming more market aware, and students are perhaps better at it than most. They might seem easily influenced by mass media in some ways, but they are a tough market. They can smell nonsense a mile off as I'm sure many of your kids have indicated. I guess I'm more wary of the subtle influences.

As Darat said, it's when they have an influence on what is learned and how it is conveyed. And there is a thin line there. Imagine showing a video on 'The Greenhouse Effect' made by a major oil company. Often it's the missing information and not what they are saying directly that is the problem.

There is a massive spectrum. I'm probably being a little hypocritical; Questacon's science circus (what I'm a part of) is sponsored by Shell. They have zero input into what we do and how we do it; and as we are not spokespersons for the company, we simply avoid making any comments concerning them at all (other than mentioning that they give us money). However, if we needed to present a show at our exhibitions on hydrocarbon technology, I might have some minor problems. If we were to perform that at schools, I'd have major problems. And if it was a resource schools used commonly...I would protest against it.

Unfortunately I can see a day come when we have something to worry about. I've looked more and more at going into resource design in the future (critical thinking resources etc.), and the market for corporate resourcing is massive. It's certainly challenging my thinking.

Athon

[TriangleMan]

Hi Athon. I'm currently reading this book Born to Buy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068487055X/sr=8-2/qid=1144063102/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2931923-2437759?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and a couple of chapters discuss corporate sponsorship in US schools. What the book discusses would make you cry :( . If even a third of what this book says is true then corporate influence in US schools is already well-entrenched. That said I'm not 100% convinced on the quality of the research yet - the book has lots of references in the back but the footnoting is not very good so it makes it difficult to determine the quality of the studies used. Still interesting reading though.

[TragicMonkey]

I was in high school in the early 90's, and there were already corporate inroads into public education. We were required to waste forty-five minutes daily watching a purported "news program" that was mostly commercials. Teachers were not allowed to assign any other activity during that time, and were supposed to punish anyone who didn't watch. (They didn't, having the sense to realize that a student who wants to read rather than watch Pepsi commercials should be left to it.)

A less intrusive but equally annoying manifestation was ad-laden book covers we were issued and required to use. Luckily the reverse side was completely blank, so in a sophistic exploitation most students put them on backwards and were still able to claim they followed instructions. I'm not sure how the corporations behind it reacted, but efforts on the administration's part to get everyone to reverse the covers failed because people would rather damage their schoolbooks than have to look at damn ads all day.

[athon]

I think this goes a step beyond pure advertising. In itself, I think many kids are rather cynical and know they are being marketed to.

I'm referring to resource packages that have biased information masquerading as curriculum information. Teachers without critical thinking skills would quite happily show a video purporting to be about environmental issues without really noticing that it is distributed by a member of the timber industry.

Athon

[Kiless]

I'm referring to resource packages that have biased information masquerading as curriculum information....

Urgh (http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html), Ahem (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/in-a-class-of-their-own/2005/11/14/1131951099047.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap3).... and cough (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353386917.html), cough (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2005/09/322455.html), cough (http://arshermeneutica.org/besieged/Statements_on_Teaching_Evolution#Australian_Scient ists_and_Science_Teachers).... but you already knew about that...

[athon]

Urgh (http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html), Ahem (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/in-a-class-of-their-own/2005/11/14/1131951099047.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap3).... and cough (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353386917.html), cough (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2005/09/322455.html), cough (http://arshermeneutica.org/besieged/Statements_on_Teaching_Evolution#Australian_Scient ists_and_Science_Teachers).... but you already knew about that...

Intelligent Design is one load of nonsense we readily attack, and with good reason. However I think that while it is a threat, it is one that is readily defined and easy to bring to the attention of others. Many teachers are at least aware of the controversy by now, hence the battle is now on a different front.

Imagine if you had a video on food chains. Nice cover, great quality, work sheets supplementing the package. The information looks like it applies to the curriculum, and the kids like it. There's stuff about energy from the sun, and how we should all be eating X grams of red meat at least once a day...

The fact it's produced by the meat industry is mentioned in the credits, and as a small insignia on the back.

We sometimes get so focussed on the big pseudoscience issues that the critical thinking of smaller issues goes unnoticed. And since this sort of resourcing is a growth industry, I think we have some need to be aware, if not concerned.

Athon

[wunky]

Athon, I understand your concern and agree with it. Working for the Federal Government in education I get to see up close the materials currently in use in K-12 and postsecondary institutions. The companies that have the money can create resource materials and "donate" them to schools and the schools will (in most cases) take them willingly- in other cases they are "encouraged" to use them by the district. There are other materials out there that can and should be used, but because these materials do not have any kind of publicity arm or other way to make educators aware of them- they are overlooked.
What I would like to figure out is some small way to juxtapose the private industry materials with the materials actually created by real educators. It is an uphill battle. What I find even more disheartening is the amount of engagement between private industry and the leadership in education.

[3point14]

This scares me. If they can afford to 'sponsor' education, then surely they can afford to be taxed more and have the resulting increase in revenue fund education in the usual manner? Even the most innocuous looking assistance is suspect. Corporations never do anything altruistic, it's against their very nature, surely?

(edited - more typos, sigh)

[athon]

It's an increasing trend for large corporations to be seen to be socially active, sponsoring programs and charity organisations. It used to be a decision based on the board's or chairman's favourite charities, or more typically that of their spouses'. These days they have special committees devoted to setting up programs and helping social groups.

You're right in assuming that it isn't purely for altruistic reasons, however it varies in what benefits they see. Some donate into fields of education purely because it produces better workers for them, without seeing it as a direct advertising (e.g., one of the multi-billion dollar companies responsible for sponsoring Questacon in Australia initially did not want to even have their company logo shown on any advertising. They did change their mind when Questacon's marketing team declared it was ultimately in their best interests). Others benefit from a wider distribution of product placement.

When it is more subtly done, in the form of distributing information that is questionable in a format that makes it seem like it is part of a curriculum, that is where I object. Sadly, it is difficult to see where the point where such 'altruism' becomes dangerous.

Athon

[TriangleMan]

Here's some activist websites that challenge corporate advertising to children. I haven't looked at them in detail so I'm not sure who the backers are:

www.commercialexploitation.com

www.newdream.org

www.commercialalert.org (I think this was started by Ralph Nader?)

[Ozymandias]

About commercialalert:
Parts of the site are fine. However, it also has sections about protecting people from violent media and other such woo.

It is also, like many things, prejudiced against television. For some odd reason, it considers television an inherently inferior medium to anything else. At least all it says about video games is that they are being pushed on impressionable children and, oh, you need to think of the children!!!!!!

[Hindmost]

A recent issue in Connecticut is disturbing.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctsoda0407.artapr07,0,6337523.story

It seems Coke doesn't want the state to ban softdrinks in schools and is using financial pressure. I don't know how pervasive something similar to this would be at the university level, but corporate sponsorship of research is really big business.


glenn:boxedin:

[ERGONER]

... I have a massive problem ... when the resources themselves contained information that is biased. And it is a trend we will only see increase..

Thoughts?

Athon

Your fundamental concern seems to be that 'biased information', especially from large corporations, will soon taint classroom education for kids.

Are you under the quite mistaken impression that our classrooms have been mostly free from biased-information ??

If you are worried about bias-in-education -- you've got a lot more to worry about than mere corporate 'sponsorship'... public government schools are already decks-awash in bias.

'What & How' children will be taught -- Always requires subjective, human decisions.
"Education" is not & cannot be some sterile, objective process -- despite widespread popular opinion to the contrary.

The core question is -- whose subjective decisions (Values) will be used?

The logical answer is "parents", but they were cut out of our compulsory government school system long ago (except to pay the bills, and hand their children over to government bureaucrats each weekday).

In American public schools, 'values' are determined by legions of education administrators, bureaucrats, and teacher-union lemmings... and whatever cultural whims they choose to pursue at the moment (..including selective corporate sponsorship). :cool:

===============

[P.S.]:

... apparently from your reference, you're most concerned with 'bias' in environmental issues.

Are you certain that your own "environmental" views are unbiased and objective ?

By what standard are the views of your feared 'corporations' judged to be biased ?

===================================