Corporate Sponsorship in Public Schools

[Steely Glint]

No, it doesn't. Does Manchester United having some corporation's logo make the former beholden to the latter? All these contracts mean is that the school has to put the company's logo somewhere and thank them occasionally.

So.... according to you the power relationship between one large multinational (Manchester United) with a globally recognized brand and another (their sponsor) and between a large multinational and a small struggling school is more or less exactly the same? You know, I'm really not sure what to make of that. I can think of three explanations:

1) You really are this stupid.
2) You really think I'm that stupid.
3) It's a deliberate tactic to shut down this line of discussion by being so spectacularly obtuse that I give up in frustration.

[Loki]

Please tell me what nefarious influence these corporations have over the schools they sponsor.

[GGT]

3) It's a deliberate tactic to shut down this line of discussion by being so spectacularly obtuse that I give up in frustration.

Moving right along.

Looking at those expenditures, it's no wonder our school budgets are strapped. Makes me wonder if we've got Athletic Departments with elementary schools attached. (We had a similar discussion about the costs of college rising, because they were building hotel-type dorms and fancy cafeterias, etc. Also how revenue is heavily tied to collegiate sports programs, scholarships tied to athletics instead of academics.)

Europeans don't operate their educational systems this way. They have sports clubs separate from their academics, right?

If one reason we say budgets are tight is because we spend so much on athletics and stadiums, and we need corporate sponsors, maybe they should be decoupled from education. Then we could focus on the actual teaching, and the teachers. If those budgets are busted it's probably related to union pensions and insurance benefits crap like this:

Viagra for teachers? Union wants taxpayers to fund it
Hundreds in school district face layoffs as union sues to have drug covered

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955...sexual_health/

Maybe they should ask Pfizer to sponsor their teacher union drug benefits plan.

Go go USA #1!

[LittleFuzzy]

Your situation and mine are not equivalent.

Sure they are.

[Loki]

Two pages in and still not one convincing reason about why corporate sponsorship is bad...Corporations are evil, I get that. But I want someone to mention the actual causal mechanism between corporate sponsorship and children being harmed in some way.

[GGT]

Two pages in and still not one convincing reason about why corporate sponsorship is bad...Corporations are evil, I get that. But I want someone to mention the actual causal mechanism between corporate sponsorship and children being harmed in some way.

Corporations aren't evil. But nice try. You still haven't shown how corporate money at schools makes education better. Causal mechanism and all that.

[Loki]

Corporations aren't evil. But nice try. You still haven't shown how corporate money at schools makes education better. Causal mechanism and all that.

Wait, so giving schools extra money doesn't improve the quality of education? Aren't you the one whining about schools not getting enough money?

[GGT]

Wait, so giving schools extra money doesn't improve the quality of education? Aren't you the one whining about schools not getting enough money?

Hello? I'm the one whining that the tax payer dollars aren't being spent very well on education. For all the billions and billions we allot for "education", our students don't compare or compete very well internationally.

NO, I don't think just throwing more money at K-12 (to build stadiums and arenas) means the existing money will automatically mean our students will have a higher quality education.

Do you?

[Aimless]

Can someone just end the suspense and tell me whether or not corporate sponsorship has reliably improved American public schools?



I think it'd be great if it has, and I think it's great for companies to support their communities, and I can even accept directing advertising towards children. I'm not going to be so stupid as to pretend there can't ever possibly be any problems with corporate sponsorship, but maybe, just maybe, there are solutions to most of those potential problems. This may be a solution that works for a country that for some reason seems unable to maintain a high-quality public education system using public funds.





Is all this money tax-deductible?

[Loki]

What exactly do you people think the schools do with the money?

[littlelolligagged]

It's a charitable contribution, Minxy - so yes.

It works here. We don't have stadiums at the high schools being named after corporations, but there have been single-entity contributions of quite large amounts. Things like books for classrooms (not textbooks ) and learning activities are one thing that would be covered by donations - things that would otherwise be coming out of a teacher's own pocket.

It seems some people are so focused on the negative extreme that they are unwilling to even pretend that there can be tangible benefits to students.

[Aimless]

What exactly do you people think the schools do with the money?

It would seem they build stadiums and pay for bad overpaid teachers





Lolli, how do you feel about selling sodas and advertising sodas in schools?

[Aimless]

Okay, I am trying to figure out what "Tax deductible" means... if Lollicorp gives 500k to Minxie High, does that mean Lollicorp pays 500k less in taxes on their income?

[littlelolligagged]

Lolli, how do you feel about selling sodas and advertising sodas in schools?

I don't think sodas should be sold at schools.

Advertising them how, exactly? If it's like what is done in my school system already, who cares? If you are planning on painting a huge Pepsi sign on the wall it is unacceptable.

[littlelolligagged]

Limits on the Charitable Contribution Deduction
Your charitable contribution tax deduction may be limited. There are limits specific to charitable contributions, and there are general limits on itemized deductions.

50%, 30%, and 20% Limits on Charitable Contributions

* Generally, you can deduct cash contributions in full up to 50% of your adjusted gross income.

* Generally, you can deduct property contributions in full up to 30% of your adjusted gross income.

* Generally, you can deduct contributions of appreciated capital gains assets in full up to 20% of your adjusted gross income.

Charitable contributions in excess of these limits can be carried over to the following tax year. The excess contributions can be carried over for a maximum of five years.

Not Tax Deductible
Contributions are not tax deductible if given to any of the following:

* Political parties, political campaigns, or political action committees.
* Contributions given to individual people.
* Fees or dues paid to professional associations.
* Contributions to labor unions, chambers of commerce, or business associations.
* Contributions to for-profit schools and hospitals.
* Contributions to foreign governments.
* Fines or penalties paid to local or state governments.
* The value of your time for services rendered to a non-profit.



edit: Actually, I don't know if corporations get the same quantity of deductions.

[Ominous Gamer]

It seems some people are so focused on the negative extreme

I think we're suffering from both extremes. The only reason we've reached 2 pages is because of dishonest debate and connections surrounding the concept and the "you stupid" replies that result from that.

[Aimless]

I'm also trying to understand one thing: there is a relationship between funding and quality of education, such that more funding = better education. That means we can't dismiss the impact of more funding as being inconsequential. How on earth can the same reasoning not apply to advertising, such that more advertising = greater influence? How on earth can someone dismiss the impact of greater exposure to advertising as being inconsequential simply because people are already exposed to advertising?

Do you think companies spend money on advertising because it's useless or do you think they spend money on advertising because advertising affects people's behaviour?

Sheesh.

[Aimless]

edit: Actually, I don't know if corporations get the same quantity of deductions.

That's the article I found and I'm wondering if this sort of thing essentially translates to public sponsorship of corporate marketing.

[Loki]

I'm also trying to understand one thing: there is a relationship between funding and quality of education, such that more funding = better education. That means we can't dismiss the impact of more funding as being inconsequential. How on earth can the same reasoning not apply to advertising, such that more advertising = greater influence? How on earth can someone dismiss the impact of greater exposure to advertising as being inconsequential simply because people are already exposed to advertising?

Do you think companies spend money on advertising because it's useless or do you think they spend money on advertising because advertising affects people's behaviour?

Sheesh.

Are you seriously suggesting that exposing kids to advertising harms them? Especially when they're exposed to far more outside of school than inside. Why exactly is influencing kids such a terrible endeavor? It's done all the time.

[littlelolligagged]

No, more funding does not automatically equal better education. More funding can provide tools that can be used for better education, though.

You're focusing on the negatives, Minxy. Does my knowing that Publix supermarket supports my children's school make me want to shop there more? The answer is of course it does. Does the kids knowing that Publix provides birthday cupcakes each month make them want to shop at Publix? Not particularly.

Of course, when they know that Barnes and Noble will be donating 10% of what they make on a particular night back to the school they are inclined to ask to be taken to the bookstore to buy books. Clearly I should nip that one in the bud.

[Aimless]

I don't think sodas should be sold at schools.

Advertising them how, exactly? If it's like what is done in my school system already, who cares? If you are planning on painting a huge Pepsi sign on the wall it is unacceptable.

I think there is a conflict of interest when a school tries to teach kids to eat and drink right while promoting coke/pepsi/pizza-hut.


If the examples mentioned in this article are real then some companies are buying active student participation and class-time for their advertising, which I think is a questionable practice at best.

I don't think pizza-night is a great thing either.

Or these examples:

http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/2000/1262

The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education reports that public schools are signing contracts that allow corporate sponsors like Burger King and Sprite to place advertisements on school buses. In New York City, the board of education recently signed a nine-year, $53 million contract with an advertising agency that allows it to advertise on the district's buses. But considering the school district's annual $8 billion budget, the estimated $5.9 million a year the district receives seems rather trivial.

In another case, Exxon provides free educational videos to classroom teachers in a concerted effort to restore its much tainted public image after the Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Exxon's propaganda depicts the company as an environmentally-friendly organization helping to protect the wildlife in Alaska.

The Hershey corporation teaches the nutritional values of its chocolate candies to students and suggests how it can be an integral part of a balanced daily diet.

[...]

In 1998, Mike Cameron, a senior at Greenbrier High School in Evans, Ga., was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the day the school was participating in Coca Cola's "school-sponsored Coke day", a national competition with other schools to win $10,000.

That sorta thing is just fucked-up and should not happen.

[Loki]

A few abuses means the general concept is bad? And is there anything new about administrative officials in high schools being stupid?

[Aimless]

Are you seriously suggesting that exposing kids to advertising harms them?

Are you suggesting that it helps them? I'm not saying advertising is inherently evil, I'm simply scoffing at the retarded suggestion that advertising is inconsequential.

Especially when they're exposed to far more outside of school than inside.

More exposure = more influence, in this case it's exposure to a captive audience. Are you denying that advertising works and that companies engage in this sort of advertising precisely because it works? If advertising were inherently harmful I'd point out that your argument is equivalent to arguing that schools don't need to be clean or free from cigarette smoke because kids are exposed to rubbish and pollution outside school anyway, or that classes don't need to be fairly quiet and orderly in order to let students focus because it's so noisy and difficult to concentrate anyway.

Advertising isn't inherently evil, but advertising pizza-hut and coke to kids may (and probably do) have less-than-ideal consequences. Are you going to try to defend the merits of advertising coke and pizza-hut pizzas to children? Go ahead, but I won't dignify that sort of nonsense with a response.

Why exactly is influencing kids such a terrible endeavor? It's done all the time.

Which is probably one of the secrets behind your spectacular epidemic of childhood obesity, congratufuckinglations

[Aimless]

A few abuses means the general concept is bad?

I didn't say that the whole concept is bad.

And is there anything new about administrative officials in high schools being stupid?

Nope, which means problems will arise that will need to be dealt with rather than to be dismissed out of hand. Both the problems that arise from stupidity and the problems that arise from stupid decisions made due to desperation eg. because your damned schools are underfunded because your country seems too stupid to fund them.

[Loki]

Are you suggesting that it helps them? I'm not saying advertising is inherently evil, I'm simply scoffing at the retarded suggestion that advertising is inconsequential.

WTF. No, I don't think the advertising helps them. I don't think it hurts them either. I do think that the extra funding helps them. Seriously, wtf. What exactly should be done to advertising on TV and outside? Ban it to keep kids from seeing it?

If advertising were inherently harmful I'd point out that your argument is equivalent to arguing that schools don't need to be clean or free from cigarette smoke because kids are exposed to rubbish and pollution outside school anyway, or that classes don't need to be fairly quiet and orderly in order to let students focus because it's so noisy and difficult to concentrate anyway.

You're not worth responding to. Goodbye.

[Aimless]

WTF. No, I don't think the advertising helps them. I don't think it hurts them either. I do think that the extra funding helps them. Seriously, wtf. What exactly should be done to advertising on TV and outside?

I don't know and I don't care about advertising outside schools, at least not in this particular thread that is even now centered on the topic of advertising inside schools. Why are you asking what should be done to advertising outside of schools? I am talking only about advertising inside schools.

Whether or not advertising does any harm depends on the specifics. If it leads to kids drinking more soda and eating more fast-food, then perhaps it causes harm.

That your schools can use the funding is true, although I'm pretty sure no-one in this thread knows at this point precisely what the sponsorship has bought your public education system. There is also the implication that there is something seriously fucked-up with your public education system, and right now I'm inclined to think that it's crazy to praise the exploitation of a crappy situation by soda-companies as a worthy solution. It may be a pragmatic solution, and perhaps that's the best your country can do, I dunno. If it is then best of luck








I still haven't gotten my head around the tax-deductions, can someone please explain if my interpretation is correct? Because it seems so absurd that I don't want it to be correct.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm also trying to understand one thing: there is a relationship between funding and quality of education, such that more funding = better education. That means we can't dismiss the impact of more funding as being inconsequential. How on earth can the same reasoning not apply to advertising, such that more advertising = greater influence? How on earth can someone dismiss the impact of greater exposure to advertising as being inconsequential simply because people are already exposed to advertising?

The question is if exposure to more advertising is qualitatively inimical. Because whatever some people may think should be the case, advertising in general is not considered or treated as inimical.

[Aimless]

You're focusing on the negatives, Minxy.

I've conceded the possible benefits, I'm focusing on the possible problems right now because otherwise this would be a very one-sided discussion and also because it's damned stupid to dismiss possible problems out of hand. I certainly like the idea of schools having more money, but I don't think you can have a reasonable stance on this issue unless you've examined the most important pros and cons.

Right now my position is that money for schools is good, sodas and fast-food in schools is bad.

[Aimless]

The question is if exposure to more advertising is qualitatively inimical. Because whatever some people may think should be the case, advertising in general is not considered or treated as inimical.

Man I love that word did you know I use your posts to nourish and to maintain my vocabulary?

You're right, of course. See the posts that have followed. Since a significant portion of the advertising is or has until recently been for sodas and fast-food--products that I think can be harmful--I think that the possible impacts of advertising should not be dismissed.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its also about the vulnerability of students in an educational atmosphere. Students have entirely different expectations and personal filters in and out of school, even between teachers or classes. They are absorbing information at hopefully a rather large rate. Can you imagine a American history class with the logo of a mosque on the cover of the book? Or a class on the Vietnam War sponsored by your local recruitment office?

Advertising isn't designed to be educational in the same sense that schools are meant to be educating, and you run the risk or mixing two possibly very different ideologies (education and acceptance) when you force them into the same space.


Its one reason in game advertising is taking off.