The Economics of School Bus Advertising

As the economic pressures on school districts intensify, more and more are considering turning to school bus advertising as a way of ameliorating their budget woes. The impulse is understandable, but it would be great if more school boards did their homework before deciding to make compulsory exposure to school bus ads a part of children’s school day. In addition to being ethically unsound, school bus ads just don’t pay.

Consider the case of Sumner County, Tennessee: the Board of Education has just filed a lawsuit against 1st Class Marketing for failing to properly pay the school district for ads sold on the district’s buses. The board’s contract with the marketing firm called for 60% of ad sales to go to the district. But to date, they’ve only received $5,422 of more than $47,000 in ad sales, so they are suing for the remaining $22,875 they claim they are owed.

So in a best-case scenario, the Sumner County board will recover that money and hopefully its court costs. That means the district would generate $28,297 in revenue from school bus advertising for school year 2010-11.

Now I know $28K is nothing to sneeze at, but let’s put that in perspective. The district’s annual budget is $180 million a year. In the best case, the school bus ads will account for about .015 percent of the district’s annual budget. Or to put it another way: ads will generate about $1.03 for each of the 27,369 students in the district. Sumner County spent $6,577 per student last school year.

And that’s if everything turns out right. If the board is unable to recoup the money it’s owed, or if it accrues significant legal fees, or if it has to devote more staff time to the dispute, the ads could actually cost the district money.

The numbers for Sumner County are consistent with what I’ve seen other places. If districts sell ad space on their buses, it’s fair to say they can expect to generate between $.50 and $1.50 per student each year.

I’m often asked, “Isn’t it better to allow school bus advertising than to lay off dozens of teachers?” It’s a compelling and heartbreaking hypothetical, but one that has little to do with the real choices school districts are facing. A better question for educators would be: “Are you really willing to sell out your students for a dollar a kid?”
Read more!

Scholastic Severs Ties With the Coal Industry

May 14, 2011

Contact: 
Josh Golin, (617-896-9369; josh@commercialfreechildhood.org)
Bill Bigelow, (503-282-6848; bill@rethinkingschools.org)
Nick Berning,  (703.587.4454; nberning@foe.org)

For Immediate Release

Scholastic Severs Ties With the Coal Industry

Controversial Elementary School Materials Withdrawn After Protests

BOSTON -- May 14 -- Yesterday afternoon, Scholastic announced that it would stop distributing “The United States of Energy,” a controversial fourth grade curriculum paid for by the American Coal Foundation.  The materials were also removed from Scholastic’s website.  Scholastic’s decision came after a two-day campaign led by the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), Rethinking Schools, Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace USA, and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

Statement of CCFC, Rethinking Schoools, FoE, & CBD

"Scholastic’s decision to stop distributing coal industry-funded teaching materials in elementary classrooms is a significant victory for anyone who believes that schools should be free of industry PR and teach fully and honestly about coal and other forms of energy.  It is also a testament to the activism of thousands of advocates for children, education, and the environment who are determined not to let the coal industry buy its way into schools.

We are pleased that Scholastic is no longer working with the coal industry and has committed to thoroughly reviewing its policy and editorial procedures on sponsored classroom materials. In addition to the American Coal Foundation, Scholastic’s InSchool Marketing clients have included the Cartoon Network, Claritin, SunnyD, Disney, and McDonald’s. Scholastic also worked with The Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which is completely funded by corporate interests. It is our hope that Scholastic will choose to stop distributing all corporate and industry sponsored classroom materials. Children everywhere deserve a commercial-free education."

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (www.commercialfreechildhood.org) is a national coalition of health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups and concerned parents who counter the harmful effects of marketing to children through action, advocacy, education, research, and collaboration among organizations and individuals who care about children. CCFC is a project of Third Sector New England (www.tsne.org).

Rethinking Schools (www.rethinkingschools.org) is a nonprofit organization that publishes a quarterly magazine and other educational materials.  Rethinking Schools seeks to provide practical guidance and supportive networking for educators who want to offer academically challenging curricula for all students and to engage students in learning contexts that emphasize equality, anti-racism, and social justice.

Friends of the Earth (http://foe.org/) is fighting to defend the environment and create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

The Center for Biological Diversity (www.biologicaldiversity.org) is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 320,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. 
Read more!

Scholastic's Suffocating Stereotypes

From Scholastic's Firefly Book Club, for pre-k and kindergarten children:


If you can't read the small type, here it is:

For girls, it's the "Perfectly Pink! Pack: Little princesses will love these five enchanting stories -- filled with everything PINK!"

For the boys, it's the "Power Pack: Keep active kids reading with five power-packed books about rockets, bulldozers, and more."

I guess if I want my daughter to be a good consumer I better tell her to put down that toy truck, stop being so active, and focus on being a little, enchanting, pink princess. And remind her that, in Scholastic's world,  it's the boys that have the power.

These suffocating stereotypes aren't, of course, unique to the kiddie marketers at Scholastic.  (Here's a fantastic word cloud breaking down the words used in  toy commercials aimed at boys and girls.)   But what's different is that Scholastic is using tax-payer funded time to peddle this junk to a captive audience of schoolchildren.  Remind me, again, why we let them do that. Read more!

Scholastic and SunnyD’s Shocking School Spree

Last week, Angela S. was shopping with her six-year-old son when he started excitedly lobbying her to buy SunnyD. Angela was surprised – it wasn’t a product she had ever purchased for him. Moreover, “he sounded like a commercial,” yet Angela’s family doesn’t even own a television, so she was pretty sure a TV ad wasn’t the source of his newfound enthusiasm for SunnyD. And then, as her son excitedly told her that if she bought SunnyD his class would get free books, it dawned on her why he was lobbying her: his teacher had told him to.

Her suspicions were confirmed when she got home and looked at the latest handouts that her son had brought home from school and saw a letter from his teacher promoting the “SunnyD Book Spree.” The letter, prewritten by SunnyD and festooned with the company’s logos, began:

Dear parents and guardians,

I’m very excited to tell you about a program our class is participating in that will bring free books to your child’s classroom. It’s called the SunnyD Book Spree, and the program will donate 20 books when our class sends in 20 SunnyD UPC labels. The program will also award hundreds of books to the ten schools that collect the most labels. Please help us get our free books!

How do you get teachers to shill for SunnyD? One way is by partnering with Scholastic, which isn’t shy about using its unique access to educators to promote products and brands in classrooms. Scholastic’s reputation as an educational company lends its clients’ in-school marketing activities a veneer of respectability, even – as in this case – when the product being marketed isn’t good for kids.

When I shared Angela’s concerns about the program with Scholastic’s Vice President of Corporate Communications, she emailed me, “The Sunny D program is a promotion in Parent & Child Magazine that is strictly for parents and teachers… not children.” But the SunnyD Book Spree website tells a different story. The “Tips for Teachers” include the following:

• Have a class party to "raise labels" for books—ask parents to send kids in with SunnyD.
• Keep fun cut-outs or colorful charts in the classroom, showing how many labels have been collected.
  

Sounds like SunnyD hopes and expects that kids will be actively involved in their classroom promotion. And that Angela’s experience with her son wasn’t an anomaly – it’s how the program was conceived.

So in exchange for twenty books, schools are being asked to:

1. Exploit a captive audience of students by making exposure to SunnyD ads compulsory.
2. Commercialize their classrooms by decorating their rooms with SunnyD ads and holding SunnyD events.
3. Encourage consumption of a product of really poor nutritional quality. When I asked my nutritionist friends about Sunny D, the phrase I heard most often was “sugar water.” An 8-oz serving of Sunny D has 27 grams of sugar; the same size serving of Coca-Cola has 26.
4. Encourage students to nag their parents for SunnyD, a product that a lot of parents would probably prefer not to buy for their kids.
5. Teach their young students that supporting your school means drinking – and proselytizing to others about – SunnyD. Think about how confusing it must have been for Angela’s son. He was doing what his teacher had asked. He was trying to help his school get books. And his mother was saying no because she doesn’t want him drinking beverages loaded with high-fructose corn syrup?! (Remember, he’s six years old.) Now think about another six year old, who because her parents are not keen on her drinking “sugar water,” is excluded from her class’s SunnyD party.
   

I hear so often, in these dark economic times, how schools need to “think outside the box” and “partner” with corporations. But marketing in schools isn’t a partnership. It’s exploitation. There’s a lot that kids should learn in school, but how to become a brand ambassador for a lousy beverage isn’t one of them.

Shame on SunnyD and Scholastic.

Read more!

A Tale of Two School Districts

Yesterday was a good day. Today brings this disappointing news from District 15 in Minnesota:

As St. Francis District 15 students put their jackets into their lockers this fall, they could be greeted by pink jelly fish or luscious apples.

It’s all part of the plan to bring more revenue into the schools.

The school board Sept. 13 voted 6-1 to allow some of the lockers at six of the district’s eight school buildings to become advertising billboards for OMCM Marketing Solutions.

A few thoughts:

1. One thing people often don’t realize about in-school advertising: schools usually don’t contract directly with advertisers; they use third-party placement agencies like OMCM. Not surprisingly, agencies that hope to profit by exploiting schools’ financial difficulties aren’t always the most scrupulous. For example, until CCFC caught them, OMCM falsely implied that reputable PBS Kids was a client. Agencies like OMCM also take a significant cut of any ad revenue generated which is one reason why…

2. Advertising is rarely the cash cow schools expect. District 15 hopes to earn $100,000 - $240,000 this year by turning its lockers into billboards. I don’t for a second mean to downplay the couple of jobs that this money could save or the supplies it might buy. But with 6,000 students, that’s only $16-40/student. Consider how many times a day students visit their lockers and how many impressions the advertisers will get to make over the course of a year. And how powerful those ads will be because a) the kids have to see them several times a day and b) the advertised products will come with the school’s implicit endorsement. Sounds like a great deal for the advertisers. I’m guessing it’s a good one for OMCM. I know it’s a lousy deal for the students.

3. OMCM Greg Meyer claims children’s lockers will be used for “nutritional and educational ads, like ads from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety urging students not to text and drive.” But I’m guessing the Minnesota Department of Public Safety doesn’t have $100,000 to throw at a campaign for 6,000 students, the overwhelming majority of whom are nowhere near driving age. You know who does? General Mills, Nintendo, MTV Networks, etc . . . So what happens come January when the ad revenue hasn’t met your projections? Does the junk food or video game that you told parents would be off limits start looking more attractive?

When you start down the slippery slope of selling your students to advertisers, it’s really hard to put on the brakes. That’s just one reason why the San Diego approach is so much more preferable.
Read more!

Sell Our Kids To Advertisers? No Thanks, Says San Diego

Huzzah to the San Diego Board of Education!

San Diego school board members were once intrigued by the thought of allowing ads on campus to help soften the blow of budget cuts, but they turned uncomfortable once they learned more.

The board voted 4-1 Tuesday to reject a plan to allow ads in hallways, cafeterias, libraries and other places on school campuses. Nine months ago, the same board directed staff to research the idea.

It is hard to overstate what a courageous decision this is. San Diego schools, like so many in these difficult times, desperately need money; officials estimate the district is facing a deficit of between $141 million and $160 million next year. But rather than succumb to slick sales pitches from companies eager to exploit their financial situation, the San Diego board carefully studied the issue.

They realized that the money they’d raise by allowing advertising on their hallways and in their cafeterias would be a drop in the bucket (about $10,000 per school) compared to what they need. More importantly, they were honest that there was a real cost associated with selling their kids to advertisers.

"We need to teach them critical thinking, not jam thoughts down their heads," said school board member John de Beck, who voted against the plan. "I don't want to be a part of using kids to sell stuff."

Neither do CCFC members. Yesterday afternoon, I learned from a reporter that a board vote was scheduled for that evening. We quickly emailed our supporters in the San Diego area and urged them to contact their board members and attend the meeting. Despite the short notice, they did. Here’s CCFC member Elena McCollim, the mother of a kindergartener in San Diego Unified schools, at the meeting last night:

Public schools, like public parks, are part of the shrinking commercial-free space in public life. I sympathize with the need for money for schools. But I question what message we're sending to our children.

And here’s what CCFC member Elaine Boyd wrote to the board:

Dear Board of Education:

I know that public schools are under terrible financial stress, but please don’t sell our kids to advertisers.

What do ads “teach” kids? They generally teach them to want things they don’t need. Turning children into hungry consumers is nearly inescapable as it is – squeezing ad messages in through the cracks of the schoolyard leaves virtually no commercial-free place to hide.

Corporations are already setting the agenda for the childhood experience in powerful ways through toys, food, and popular media. (There is a growing body of academic work dedicated to the subject.) The halls of education should be the place where the message to “consume – consume – consume” should be countered, not promoted.

I have a 4 year old daughter who will enter kindergarten in one year. Some of my friends are stunned that she doesn’t pester me to buy things for her. It’s because she has never seen TV or print ads and hasn’t been taught to want things that (a) are bad for her health, or (b) will wind up in a landfill within months.

I love that my child is unreachable by corporations who seek to create false needs in her mind, thus saddling her with a needless sense of dissatisfaction if she doesn’t get the desired object. Offering her up to single-minded corporate advertisers would certainly change that.

Finally, I have heard that in-school advertising almost never generates the revenue that administrators expect. Please reject ads in schools.

What a perfect letter. And what a great decision by the Board. Even in this economy, we can -- and must -- preserve commercial-free spaces for kids. Read more!

This Science Lesson is Brought to You By...

An article in the Sacramento Bee last week raised concerns about the role of British Petroleum scientists in shaping a statewide k-12 science curriculum. BP representatives were among many experts called in to shape what and how science would be taught to California students. Having caused the worst human-made ecological disaster ever, BP certainly deserves to be the current poster child for corporate greed and corruption. But the company’s participation on a large committee shaping science curriculum is only a tiny piece of the giant problem of corporate influences on what children learn in school. For one thing, other industry representatives with a clear financial stake in how and what children learn about fossil fuels and non-renewable energy were also represented, along with environmental groups, educators and academics.

Significantly more troubling than BP’s role in shaping the curriculum are what’s called Sponsored Educational Materials (SEMS), created solely by corporations or corporate trade organizations and distributed for free in schools around the world. These teaching materials bypass review by any board of education and are marketed directly to teachers as alternatives to aging, out of date, and/or expensive textbooks.

SEMS are not exactly new. I have vague memories of watching industrial films in elementary school made by G.E. and other companies. But, like all commercialism, the presence of these materials in schools has escalated—and will escalate even more as we continue to abdicate financial responsibility for public education. In Britain, BP creates science and math materials for kids as young as five.

In the U.S., Exxon is notorious for the ecology curriculum it developed after the Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Currently, the American Petroleum Institute (API) hands out teaching materials that are heavy on extolling the virtues of fossil fuels and light on environmental concerns:

API materials also feature a video game about offshore drilling designed for students in grades 6 to 12. Not surprisingly, the action doesn’t include explosions, fires, or devastating, unstoppable leaks:


The American Plastics Council, a division of the American Chemistry Council, which—like BP—helped shape the California curriculum, has its own downloadable teaching materials. Hands on Plastics, Jr., for kindergarten and early elementary school classes, includes a work sheet featuring the Polymer Family’s House:


Of course, the worksheet doesn’t question whether the Polymer family needs all of the plastic stuff in their house. Or how it was made. Or where it’s going to end up.

The American Plastic Council also offers a polymer ditty to be sung in the classroom to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell, which includes verses like this:
What’s markedly absent is a verse addressing any environmental concern about plastic polymers. Perhaps something like this:I’m not unaware of the ways that we benefit from oil and plastic. Full disclosure: I drive a car, have a toothbrush, and my husband is an art conservator who uses plastic polymers in his (excellent) restorations. And I certainly believe that children should learn about material sciences in school. But they shouldn’t be taught content provided by entities with a financial interest in what they do or do not learn.

The American Petroleum Institute, with 400 corporate members, describes itself as “the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry.” The goal of its teaching materials is to “Provide teachers and students with engaging and informative resources on energy and related concepts, including the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.”

According to the American Plastic Council’s website, its mission is to “advocate unlimited opportunities for plastics and promote their economic, environmental and societal benefits.” To accomplish that mission, the Council demonstrates “the benefits of plastic products and the contributions of the plastics industry to the society it serves.”

The purpose of these organizations is to protect and promote the industries and the corporate interests they serve, not to educate the public with balanced and objective information. Given the state of the environment, we don’t need to extol the benefits of fossil fuels and plastics to children—we should help them weigh the environmental costs against the benefits of our dependence of them, and learn to think carefully about what they need and don’t need.

Oil and plastics aren’t the only industries that distribute SEMS. So does the coal industry, the food industry, the entertainment industry, and even the drug industry. One primary purpose of education should be to promote critical thinking in children. By definition, corporations—legally bound to make profits for their stockholders—can’t jeopardize sales by promoting critical thinking about their products. For that reason, alone, they cannot create effective, ethical educational materials. Read more!