Corporate Sponsorship in Public Schools

[Steely Glint]

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

I'll tell you when you're ready to participate in the thread in good faith, rather than playing the retarded little word games you try and pass off as rebuttals. I believe there is a pool going as to when you'll say "So you're against funding education?" or "Show me where corporate CEOs have come down to school in their limos and sodomised schoolchildren in exchange for funding?"

[GGT]

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

Jury is still out. Improved budgets, yes. Improved our public education, who knows.....

...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.

I'd rather require the (already well-funded) school districts find ways to utilize their budgets better, for education. If that means less fancy buildings to pay for more text books, or less pension promises to retired teachers in order to pay current teachers, then we should do that. If it means not having an Olympic sized natatorium in order to have high-tech classrooms, then we should do that too.

Some of the best schools (for test scores and students with a great education) are parochial or religious. With much less funding than our public schools, often in older buildings and cramped classrooms, they get creative with their budgets. They find ways to raise extra funds for things like band uniforms, they don't run to Nike and ask for sponsorship money.

It's almost ironic to see posters who usually talk about reducing public spending and taxes, making better use of finite resources, suddenly sound like more money = better, for everything. Or that's all we need, more money. Find the money, and it all follows. Hell, hasn't our current health care system proven that notion false?

[Loki]

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.

And it would be that difficult for teachers to explain to their students that the reason companies have logos in the school is because they're nice enough to donate equipment, repair facilities, etc.?

I'll tell you when you're ready to participate in the thread in good faith, rather than playing the retarded little word games you try and pass off as rebuttals. I believe there is a pool going as to when you'll say "So you're against funding education?" or "Show me where corporate CEOs have come down to school in their limos and sodomised schoolchildren in exchange for funding?"

And yet no one has given a single way that corporate sponsorship negatively affects students. The only argument I see is that "advertising is bad", but the same people would probably acknowledge that children are bombarded with so much advertisement outside of school that adding some would probably make little difference.

[Ominous Gamer]

Thats not really related to the issue there loki

The teachers having to expain away anything, before hoping to reach the students in an educational capacity is in fact, counter productive; and I highly doubt addressing such issues would be allowed by the contracts.

[Loki]

You mean showing that the negative impact is negligible (assuming it even exists) is irrelevant? Do you people never have to make tradeoffs in your lives?

[GGT]

Oh great, now it's the you people angle.

[Ominous Gamer]

I thought the idea that a certain stance on education importance some how means anything about everything else in our lives was worth a chuckle or two.

[Steely Glint]

And yet no one has given a single way that corporate sponsorship negatively affects students. The only argument I see is that "advertising is bad", but the same people would probably acknowledge that children are bombarded with so much advertisement outside of school that adding some would probably make little difference.

I thought it was obvious? If a corporation is funding a school, it can widthdrawl that funding at any time and leave the school up shit creek. They could use this to leverage control over the school, and get a say in e.g curriculum, discipline, etc.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its not far fetched to see a LGBT or atheist group request that the auditorium they just funded not be used by groups that restrict membership based on concepts that would exclude them. Which may sound great on the surface, it would mean the death of several Scouting groups (the cheers should be saved for a different thread).
Or in the reverse, a religious group killing school dances because of the evil gays, which as we have already seen, schools are not above of.

[Lewkowski]

Waaaaaaaaaaaah the corporate boogey man is gonna get our kids!

[Aimless]

Meanwhile selling pizzas and sodas in schools doesn't lead to kids buying pizzas and sodas in school.

God, you people...

[Aimless]

ps. coke and pizza hut want to get into schools because they want to have a negligible influence on the behaviour of children. This is how these companies make money, by wasting it. It makes perfect sense

[GGT]

Waaaaaaaaaaaah the corporate boogey man is gonna get our kids!

Says the homeschooler guy.

You Waaaaaaaaah in threads about gummint agencies or branches not spending tax dollars wisely, mismanaging budgets, or caving to union demands....but don't expect accountability from them? Just get mo' money from the corporate suits?

[littlelolligagged]

ps. coke and pizza hut want to get into schools because they want to have a negligible influence on the behaviour of children. This is how these companies make money, by wasting it. It makes perfect sense

Pizza Hut has been in schools since I was a child. They sponsor a fucking reading program. Read X minutes, get a free personal pan pizza.

[Loki]

I thought it was obvious? If a corporation is funding a school, it can widthdrawl that funding at any time and leave the school up shit creek. They could use this to leverage control over the school, and get a say in e.g curriculum, discipline, etc.

A) They sign a contract which presumably precludes them from doing so at short notice.
B) There are usually other corporations that are willing to take their place.
C) Even if they withdraw funding, the school is better off for having had the funding for a certain period of time (especially if it entailed upgrading/building facilities). It's not like a company can say "give us back the textbooks we bought you last year".

ps. coke and pizza hut want to get into schools because they want to have a negligible influence on the behaviour of children. This is how these companies make money, by wasting it. It makes perfect sense

Negligible negative impact. Making people more likely to buy their pizza is hardly hurting anyone.

[Illusions]

Waaaaaaaaaaaah the corporate boogey man is gonna get our kids!

Yet you complain regularly about liberals indoctrinating children through the schooling system, which is one of the reasons you advocate homeschooling...so essentially:

Waaaaaaaaaaaah the liberal boogey man is gonna get our kids!

Glass houses man.

[Loki]

Do we have any evidence that corporate sponsorship actually affects the curriculum in more than a handful of cases?

[GGT]

A) They sign a contract which presumably precludes them from doing so at short notice.
B) There are usually other corporations that are willing to take their place.
C) Even if they withdraw funding, the school is better off for having had the funding for a certain period of time (especially if it entailed upgrading/building facilities). It's not like a company can say "give us back the textbooks we bought you last year".

You seem to know a lot about these sponsorship contracts. Presumably they include non-competition clauses?

So, Nike could buy all new custom band uniforms and shoes for the marching band, supply all the athletic teams with free or discounted jerseys and running shoes, maybe even the running track or gym equipment, the whole nine yards. Sounds ok on the surface. Until some kid wants to wear Adidas or NuBalance and is told they can't.....

I'd imagine the district would have to hire a law firm to review contracts and negotiate deals. The broker charges a 30% commission. And that's just for the sports venues! Sorry, that's not a good use of tax dollars for education.

Loki, you have yet to show how this scheme would raise student test scores, graduation rates, or comprehension skills. You have yet to prove how administrators and educators would use the rest of the public budget to improve education. You just assume they will?

[Lewkowski]

Yet you complain regularly about liberals indoctrinating children through the schooling system, which is one of the reasons you advocate homeschooling...so essentially:

Waaaaaaaaaaaah the liberal boogey man is gonna get our kids!

Glass houses man.

See the beauty of a voucher program is the parent gets to decide where the child goes. Don't like corporate "indoctrination" (oooh look an ad just like on TV and billboards) then take your credits and go to a school that doesn't have one. Simple ain't it?

[GGT]

Wow, I just stumbled on this article about New York's schools and test scores.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/ed...&ref=education

But they're ordering a grammar book ASAP, and will keep training their teachers. I really don't think a corporate sponsor will help some of these problems....it seems more structural or conceptual, than just about budgets.

[Illusions]

See the beauty of a voucher program is the parent gets to decide where the child goes.

That is also its horrendously major flaw.

Wow, I just stumbled on this article about New York's schools and test scores.

NYC != NY

[Lewkowski]

That is also its horrendously major flaw.

Because the government is better then parents in deciding the education of the child...

And you wonder why people who like freedom dislike liberals?

[GGT]

NYC != NY

I know!

There were large drops in passing rates across New York, reflecting new requirements intended to correct for years of inflated results. The exams, state education officials said, had become too easy to pass, their definition of proficiency no longer meaningful. Citywide, the proficiency rate in English fell to 42 percent, from 69 percent last year; 54 percent reached grade level in math, down from 82 percent.

[Loki]

If you read carefully, you'll see the main reason for the fall in grades is that it now takes more correct answers to get the same grades.

[Illusions]

Because the government is better then parents in deciding the education of the child...

My metric for whether or not the parents, the government, or a group of people, is better at deciding the education of a child are both the degree to which that decision results in a child that is capable of integrating properly with society and their accumulated knowledge of factual information and life skills in proportion to their best ability to learn or carry out these things...

...I do not believe that you, and certain other members of society that would use this voucher system have the judgmental ability necessary to carry this out. Your child is not your property and is a member of society as a whole. I would very much like society to at the very least continue to function at its current level, and at best actually improve. I do not think that if everyone were to apply your decisions of how children should be educated that either of these conditions would be met.

[GGT]

If you read carefully, you'll see the main reason for the fall in grades is that it now takes more correct answers to get the same grades.

Tougher grading, new algorithms. It's used state-wide as criteria to grade the students, teachers, principals, school standing....and funding.

What's your point? That getting McDonald's or Gatorade in there with more money will make a marked difference in performance?

[Loki]

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of mono-causal explanations?

[GGT]

Do you plan to participate in this thread, with your own opinions, or just continue this tactic of yours, Loki?

How about you start by laying out how corporate sponsorships, (ie more money) will lead to better results (ie better-educated kids and high-performing public schools)?

[Lewkowski]

My metric for whether or not the parents, the government, or a group of people, is better at deciding the education of a child are both the degree to which that decision results in a child that is capable of integrating properly with society and their accumulated knowledge of factual information and life skills in proportion to their best ability to learn or carry out these things...

So theoretically if I could show that home school children are statistically more likely to get higher paying jobs, go to college or score better on standardized tests then public school children would you be A-OK with vouchers for home school children? Ditto with say charter schools or private schools?

...I do not believe that you, and certain other members of society that would use this voucher system have the judgmental ability necessary to carry this out.

Ah so in your opinion a parent should not have the right to educate their child as they wish to? Do you support forceful public schooling?

Say I want to teach a child that the earth is flat. Currently I could do that if I choose to home school my child. Are you suggesting that the current laws are bad? That parents should be FORCED to send their children to be taught by public schools?

Really the inherent assumption in talk about schooling is that parents currently have a choice and should have a choice. It is just not a choice that is financially viable for many parents. Even most die hard liberals aren't in favor of having the government force kids into public schools at the point of the gun. Are you?

Your child is not your property and is a member of society as a whole. I would very much like society to at the very least continue to function at its current level, and at best actually improve. I do not think that if everyone were to apply your decisions of how children should be educated that either of these conditions would be met.

Again if I could show you evidence that home schooled children are less likely to be incarcerated then say public school children in the inner city would you withdraw your concern about the quality of home schooled education?

[Khendraja'aro]

Negligible negative impact. Making people more likely to buy their pizza is hardly hurting anyone.

Right, so Coca Cola or Pepsi putting their drinks all over the schools means that the pupils suddenly adapt healthy eating habits. Last time I looked, that stuff still is pure sugar.

And I still think that Lewk's child is pretty poor of. On the other hand, since teenager usually revolt against the habits of their parents (especially if they're as heavy-handed as Lewk), he'll pretty much have fun beating his kids into submission.