Ethical Concerns
[W]e look for E*education to become the stealth portal to over 65 million students and their 50 million parents. (Thomas Weisel Partners 2000)
[W]e believe that education-related Web sites convey a unique sense of credibility and trust that will likely result in audiences being more receptive to their messages (in the form of content and advertising). Therefore, we expect the e-knowledge companies that build successful online communities to offer a highly desirable advertising medium. (Wit Capital Corporation 1999)
Many critics of school-business partnerships acknowledge the generosity, long-term educational vision, and concern for the well-being of youths that animate true philanthropists in the business community. Nancy Willard, director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education at the University of Oregon, acknowledges the generosity of "enlightened companies" that take "a long-term perspective on the importance of education of our nation's youth and the role that technology can play in this education" (Willard 2000).
Willard and others warn, however, that businesses all too frequently use their access to children merely to peddle products and services and collect personal information for marketing purposes. Molnar (April 1999) writes: "Today, the price of a computer lab, or a school web site, is very often the willingness to provide advertisers access to students and to information about students and their families."
In "The Commercial Transformation of American Public Schools," Molnar (October 1999) observes: "Virtually any industry you can name is taking aim at schools. This is the curriculum as a flea market open to any special interest with money for a booth." Mike Kennedy echoes this view in "Public Schools, Private Profits":
Whether it's free computers, free televisions, exclusive sales deals with soft-drink companies, educational materials and incentive programs created by private businesses, or businesses who want to operate schools for a profit, private corporations have set their sights on the nation's millions of students as potential customers and schools as the best place to reach them. (Kennedy 2000 )
According to Molnar (1998), the proliferation of commercial activity in schools is so widespread that there is reason to view the 1990s as "the decade of sponsored schools and commercialized classrooms." The level of commercial activity in the classroom is likely to rise, as educators are urged to bring technology into the classroom. "These practices seem certain to increase," says Molnar (April 1999), "as the current emphasis on computer technology and utilization of the world wide web encourages the formation of more 'public-private partnerships' to provide computers, software, and web access."
A Range of Criticisms
Critics caution that school-business partnerships are subject to abuse when they become vehicles for the following activities in schools:
Advertise to a captive audience: From TV commercials to banner ads, children are being forced to view advertising in the classroom. "Today, in schools all over America," Molnar (April 1999) writes, "students are routinely required to view advertising in order to complete class assignments or are denied access to learning technologies unless they provide marketers information about themselves and their families."
Concerned educators point out that such practices undermine schools' ability to teach children critical discernment (Boyles) and violate public trust (CACE 1999, NASBE 2000).
Distribute "educational junk mail": From dental-hygiene awareness pamphlets to websites and TV news shows, corporations often distribute "curricular materials" that tend to promote their products and have little educational value. Molnar (October 1999) points out that such materials are introduced into the classroom without the usual screening process:
Unlike textbooks that are often adopted only after a time-consuming formal review process, corporate sponsored materials often enter the classroom as a form of educational junk mail which an individual teacher uses as she or he sees fit.
Careful professional assessment of the age-appropriateness, relative value, and simple truth contained in these materials is often sacrificed in the name of "school-business partnership."
Online educational materials and activities are the latest incarnation of "an old wolf in new sheep's clothes," according to Willard. She calls the new dot.com model "Edutainvertising-online learning activities masquerading as educational activities, with high entertainment value, created for the purpose of brand promotion" (Willard 2001).
Businesses all too frequently use their access to children merely to peddle products and services and collect personal information for marketing purposes.
Market junk food and soda to students: Critics are raising an outcry over business sponsors that require schools to agree to exclusive vending rights for soft drinks, and to allow ads for fast-food burgers on everything from school buses to book covers and school planners. In "Students for Sale," Steven Manning (1999) begins with one parent's reaction:
When Susan Crockett walked Amy, her 8-year-old daughter, to her school bus stop last September, she was in for a surprise. The school bus that rolled up was covered with advertisements for Burger King, Wendy's and other brand-name products. A few weeks later, Amy, a third grader, and Crockett's three older children arrived home toting free book covers and school planners covered with ads for Kellogg's Pop-Tarts.... Then, in November, came news that local school officials were pushing a year-old contract giving Coca-Cola exclusive permission to sell its products in district schools. That was the last straw for Crockett.
"It really angers me that the school is actively promoting and pushing a product that's not good for kids," says Crockett, whose oldest child was a senior last year in the Colorado Springs, Colorado, school system.
Under fire from the public, the company that "practically wrote the book" on commercial marketing on campus is now "stepping back its efforts to promote its soda products in schools" (Norris 2001). On March 14, Coca-Cola announced that it will remove its company logo from school vending machines, stock the machines with healthier products, and put less emphasis on exclusive sales contracts with schools. Norris observes:
The announcement comes at a time when the soft drink industry as a whole is under attack. Recent studies have linked soft drinks to childhood obesity, and critics say Coke's bold statement is really a pre-emptive strike to get ahead of legislation that would severely restrict soft drink sales in schools.
The new products will still be produced by Coke, and Coca Cola is only "asking-but not forcing-local distributors to end exclusive sales contracts with schools" (Norris). Pointing out the money cash-strapped schools stand to lose, Norris predicts that "today's announcement may improve Coca-Cola's corporate image, but do little to change the way its products are sold in schools. "
Incur "hidden costs" to schools: Sponsorship deals that require students to view TV programs with commercials and questionable educational benefits can cost schools and taxpayers more than they realize. Sawicky and Molnar (l998) analyze what they claim is the true cost of Channel One, "a ten-minute news broadcast supplemented by two minutes of commercials" provided mainly to middle-school and high-school students:
Broadcasting Channel One takes up six or seven days of instruction over the school year.
The twelve minute Channel One program costs American taxpayers $1.8 billion annually.
It costs $300 million a year of the public's money to require students to watch Channel One's two minutes of commercials.
The value of schools' foregone time exceeds the rental value of the equipment Channel One provides by a huge margin. On average, twelve daily minutes of a secondary school's time costs almost $158,000 a year. This cost is far in excess of both the total value of Channel One's equipment ($17,000) and the annual rental value of the equipment ($4,000) in every state.
Critics are raising an outcry over business sponsors that require schools to agree to exclusive vending rights for soft drinks, and to allow ads for fast-food burgers on everything from school buses to book covers and school planners.
Sawicky and Molnar also explain how educators can use their report to calculate what Channel One costs their own schools.
Require students to disclose personal information for marketing purposes, to access "free" technological resources: The U.S. General Accounting Office reports on this "growing" and "highly controversial" phenomenon in schools:
According to market research literature, some schools have earned thousands of dollars or computer equipment in exchange for allowing companies to conduct market research activities with students, including taste tests, focus groups, and surveys. Market research might be conducted by employees of market research firms or through students' school Internet use. For example, using computers in schools across the nation, children serve on Internet panels and respond to surveys or questions that are presented on-line. Students can also participate in virtual shopping games in which they indicate their preference for items and participate in contests. (Shaul)
Willard criticizes the use of students as commercial research subjects and warns against the "new dot.com business model" in which corporate sponsors bring technology into the classroom while engaging in targeted marketing and online profiling of students. She writes:
As pressure on schools' budgets and demand for investments in new technologies increase, a new dot.com business model has emerged. This new model involves the offer of "free" technology resources to schools supported by an online advertising program that involves the collection of market-related personal information from students (online profiling) and targeted marketing of students with banner ads--within the educational learning environment.
According to Willard (2000), such invasions of student privacy undermine efforts to teach children how to protect their privacy online:
It is not possible for schools to teach children about the importance of protecting their personal privacy on the Internet if they are entering partnerships that require students to agree to the collection of personal information as a condition for use of the technology resources.
The concerns critics are raising over corporate involvement in schools are directed less at the businesses that have generously opened their doors to schools than at the marketers who aim to open the doors of schools to businesses.
Molnar (April 1999) questions whether schools should provide demographic information about students even in aggregate form. Even more troublesome than the question of privacy, he believes, is that students are required to provide the information to participate in a school activity.
Willlard (2000) also questions the constitutional legitimacy of requiring students to disclose personal information to companies in order to access the educational resources of their public schools:
States have a constitutional obligation to provide a free, public education. Increasingly, schools have determined that access to educational and communications resources on the Internet are an important component of the educational preparation of children for the 21st century. In light of [their] constitutional obligations, schools should consider whether it is ethical--or legal--to establish a technology-based learning environment that will require students to consent to the collection of their personal private information by a third-party commercial company as a condition for participation in the program.
Computers and Internet Access
To meet their ethical obligations to students, schools should carefully scrutinize the web-related privacy policies of the companies that provide online resources to their students, and negotiate partnerships that offer students quality educational experiences while preserving their right to privacy (Willard 2000). When using technology in the classroom, educators may wish to take into account the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999, and the guidelines listed in the sidebar titled "Federal Laws Protecting Student Privacy" on page 6.
|
