Yes, it's Capitalism at its finest
Yes, just limit signs and mascots on campus
Yes, but only for sports programs
No, it's Crazy Capitalism
No, donors shouldn't be advertised sponsors
No, conflicts of interest
I don't know
I don't care
The Book It reading incentive programme looks like a good ideaOriginally Posted by littlelolligagged
selling pizzas and soda in school cafeterias looks less good to me, but hey I'm just one of those ivory-tower head-up-in-the-clouds elitists who think that kids will consume--and crave--more fast-food and soda if it's available in their schools.
I wonder how the amounts differ from one public school to the next.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And I must say I think it's a damn' shame the Book It programme hasn't actually been evaluated, at least not as far as I can tell. Does it promote literacy? Does it make reading into an inherently enjoyable activity for children? Does it encourage kids to read shorter, easier books? Would be interesting to find out.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
With the Book It program, since you get the reward based on reading 20 minutes a day, probably not.
One thing I have noticed with my own kids, though - when they are reading books assigned to them that they aren't particularly interested in, if they are told to read 2 chapters they kind of skim them and skip around to get done as fast as possible, but if they have a set time to read they just sit and read normally and get much more out of it.So I do think Pizza Hut has it right with that.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Reading with the Rays does the same time based reading. I think its 9 hours over the summer to get a free ticket.
Taco Bell does it per title, we've seen some interesting E Fic titles our young adults have turned in.
Reading in exchange for a coupon for a free personal pan pizza is one thing. I don't have a problem with incentivizing reading. I'd prefer it not revolve around food rewards -- pizza or ice cream parties in the classroom especially. It's something else to have Pizza Hut physically in the lunch room. Our middle school offers Pizza Hut in the cafeteria every Friday. In "exchange" for something probably, but not sure what.
Buddy Boy has a comment. It was about television, but it applies to the schools as well.
The effect of advertising in schools on our impressionable little younglings is minimal, because they don't control the money. Hopefully they don't have parents who say yes to every little thing.
I'll agree that it is wrong if it is taken to the extremes, but I find it annoying that extremes are all anyone wants to focus on in this thread. The worst case scenario is terrible, and a vehicle for discussion - but it doesn't mean that it applies to the majority of schools. There are positive benefits to companies getting involved in local schools - not just for the companies, but for the schools as well.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
They do seem to control enough of the money for vending machines and pizza-hut pizzas in school cafeterias to be profitable. As for effect, does that mean that advertising on TV that is ostensibly directed towards kids--eg. ads for cool toys, happy meal, etc--is in reality directed mostly towards their parents?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then parents shouldn't say yes to every thing proposed in schools. We do, after all, provide the money as tax payers.
Who's going to extremes or saying that it applies to a majority of schools?I'll agree that it is wrong if it is taken to the extremes, but I find it annoying that extremes are all anyone wants to focus on in this thread. The worst case scenario is terrible, and a vehicle for discussion - but it doesn't mean that it applies to the majority of schools.
The OP contains facts that are in my backyard; sponsors for non-athletic portions of public schools, including libraries, cafeterias, media labs, nurse offices. Our state budget is busted, our schools in dire straits, our property taxes outrageous. Those aren't hypotheticals.
Of course there are, especially when a company is part of a community, or groups of businesses band together to get involved in education (Junior Achievement, Toastmasters, Rotary or Lions Clubs). But not when it's a SUBSTITUTE for managing tax funds inefficiently, or using corporate sponsorship to prop up a whole school district.There are positive benefits to companies getting involved in local schools - not just for the companies, but for the schools as well.
Example: Detroit and its suburbs relied heavily on big 3 auto donations to operate their public schools. From funding music/art/sports/libraries/tutoring/mentoring/science labs/technology. It gave the district supervisors a false sense of continual funds, and local property taxes weren't needed as much. Then the auto industry had its crisis, and the housing bubble burst. But there are still millions of kids who need public schools. Oops.
Advertising is not always about going after the money pockets, but about brand recognition. Hook them early, and cultivate from there. There are some brands that are extremely good at this, Crayola and LEGO are two examples. In the research I posted earlier, Toyota was one icon that children were familiar with.
Btw re. the question of whether or not these activities are tax-deductible, would I be correct in assuming that if it amounts to buying ad-space and ad-time then the whole sum can't be tax-deductible??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But, but, but, LEGO Mindstorms is such awesome stuff! We even built our own sensors!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I think that pretty soon vending machines and pizza-hut pizzas in school aren't going to be happening, or will have healthier options instead. A slice of cheese and veggie thin crust pizza in the cafeteria or 100% fruit snacks from the vending machine are the first examples I could come up with.
On to ads: I think it is, partially. They want to hook the kids, but the effective advertisers also hook the parents. For example, McDonald's ads now show the cheap plastic toys and the happy grinning kid - and they nearly always show mom discussing how the apple dippers and low-fat milk make it a "healthy" choice for little Abby or Elvis.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
If it is buying ad-space and ad-time you're right.
If they are only given an acknowledgment I wouldn't think it would prevent it from being a charitable donation.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Yep, and they're very good at that. Our middle school art teacher did a pop-art kind of project, where the kids took a wrapper or label from candy or soda, cut off a portion of the name or logo, and painted the scrap at large-scale. It was amazing that everyone could recognize Coke from just the cursive C, Snickers from the ers, McDonald's arches from half an M.
Lolli, my younger kid came home (momentarily) and I asked him to comment about this and minx's thread about schools, education, incentives. Very small window of opportunity there, but he said (truncated)
"I wouldn't care much if we had that stuff in our school. We all know about name brands and advertising. But we make fun of the girls who think they're cool if they brag about their designer clothes or purses. We do the same with the jocks. We make fun of them 'cuz it's not about what we're supposed to learn at all. We all wanna fit in and learn things, but you make too much of this shit. We have lottsa groups. I don't really care who pays for stuff, well, unless it's you and you complain. You ask too many hard questions. None of us kids are on the school board. My friends have parents who are, and the coach's wife is a superintendent. But I know what you mean. My friends thought it was cool our car had roll-down windows but they still worked the same as X who brags about his Lexus. It's like Y bragging about all his new release games. Or Z bragging about his expensive long pole. Their dad buys them stuff so they'll be cool, but still suck. Is that what you mean?"
Then he ran out to meet up at Dairy Queen.
Maybe I am taking this too seriously, this corporate funding crap.
Would all the parents using the vouchers be sending their children to those very same charter, and private schools that were used in the study? Or sending their kids to be homeschooled by the same parents that were featured in the study? No? Then how does that study apply to the whole nation?
That depends on the parent. Are they capable of making intelligent choices about their child's education?Ah so in your opinion a parent should not have the right to educate their child as they wish to?
No, because some of them are pretty terrible. Perhaps we should raise taxes to make sure they are not so terrible, or come up with some other solution to fix that problem, because someone, even if we had a voucher program, would have to use these public schools.Do you support forceful public schooling?
Yes. There appears to be very little qualifying ability to make substantial choices that affect society as a whole in many areas, choosing how to educate your child is so far one of them.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?
Again, no.That parents should be FORCED to send their children to be taught by public schools?
Well see here is the thing. Yes I believe they should have a choice to send their child to a private school if it is in fact better than the local public school, or they could homeschool them if they are capable (I highly doubt most Americans willing to do this are actually capable of providing what I would consider a proper education in a way that is better than their local public or private school). In a fanciful alternate universe I would even entertain the idea of allowing a parent to decide between sending their child to a proper school, or sending them to a private school, or homeschooling where they'd be taught the Earth was flat, or some other blatantly wrong, non-factual, fanciful ideas, but this would be more so we know what parents to jail for child abuse. However since we live in the real world, I'd rather it not even get that far.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?
No because not every public school or private school is of the quality of the poorest regions of the inner city, and not every parent is probably of the quality level of those featured in whatever study, funded by homeschooling advocates, that you'd be bringing as your evidence.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?
. . .
Some home schooled children would be worse off then public schools. Some private schools kids will be worse off. But in aggregate if you could show home school/private school was better what is your beef with home schooling? It seems like you have a pretty big bias against it when you say public schools should be the default even if they have been statistically shown to be less effective then home schooling.Would all the parents using the vouchers be sending their children to those very same charter, and private schools that were used in the study? Or sending their kids to be homeschooled by the same parents that were featured in the study? No? Then how does that study apply to the whole nation?
So how would you determine if a parent is intelligent and capable enough to make that choice? Oh I know we can have a government bureaucracy make that decision! Because everyone knows government knows best...That depends on the parent. Are they capable of making intelligent choices about their child's education?
Just throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. Look at the DC public school districts. TONS of money goes into those classrooms more per pupil then the vast majority of school districts in the country. They still suck.No, because some of them are pretty terrible. Perhaps we should raise taxes to make sure they are not so terrible, or come up with some other solution to fix that problem, because someone, even if we had a voucher program, would have to use these public schools.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com...hool-spending/
Again how would you change the law? Would you create a new bureaucracy that will force parents to teach children the way you want them to be taught? Again - who decides? The idea that government could force its way into the home and act as a literal big brother in what parents are teaching their kids is disgusting.Yes. There appears to be very little qualifying ability to make substantial choices that affect society as a whole in many areas, choosing how to educate your child is so far one of them.
Of course you would feel that way. Most big government liberals have a very dim view of humanity. That is why its so important for the government to make all the decisions for the stupid people who don't know any better...Yes I believe they should have a choice to send their child to a private school if it is in fact better than the local public school, or they could homeschool them if they are capable (I highly doubt most Americans willing to do this are actually capable of providing what I would consider a proper education in a way that is better than their local public or private school).
And of course home schooling isn't for everyone. If both parents work full time jobs its pretty much impossible. However by allowing a voucher to be given to pay for the materials that would allow families working off of one income to provide the tools needed to allow their child to succeed.
So because not all parents are as good as the ones currently home schooling kids we should ignore any evidence that people have reviewed and not even try a voucher program towards allowing parents to home school?No because not every public school or private school is of the quality of the poorest regions of the inner city, and not every parent is probably of the quality level of those featured in whatever study, funded by homeschooling advocates, that you'd be bringing as your evidence.
OK again its very clear you have a HUGE bias against home schooling. What potential factual evidence would you ever accept that would allow you to say "hmm maybe this is a good idea." Or are you just dead set against it, facts be damned?
And then Lewk goes on to talk as though he knows what education is.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Re. charter-schools: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MU...%20SUMMARY.pdf
Via google: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...rc6yspSVrgomJg
Just to get started
An interesting comment on the study: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...y_oddities.php
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The first question that popped into my head was "huh, I wonder if a study of traditional public schools would show a mirror result, if this study was performed on them?"Re. charter-schools: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MU...%20SUMMARY.pdf
Via google: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...rc6yspSVrgomJg
Just to get started
An interesting comment on the study: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...y_oddities.php
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Uh, since that study is a comparison of charter schools to public schools, that question does not really make sense.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Funny... I was just talking about pizza hut in another thread.
Mm, I was just reading... that worked up an appetite.... I WANT PIZZA NOW! Preferably Pizza Hut pizza...
It doesn't? How does wondering if you'd see mirrored results in an identically-structured study comparing public schools to charter schools not make sense? Logically it should mirror, I'm curious if it actually would.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Because that study already compares public schools to charter schools...
I mean, here we have a study "Is A better than B?" and you want to ask "Is B better than A?" I don't really see any meaningful difference.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'm uncertain how someone could come to the logical conclusion that it is better for a child to be educated by someone whose primary job and educational background is not that of an educator, and that one person could be just as good as many. To further explain this, the vast majority of teachers I've had or met while attending public school were either working on, or had completed their masters degree in either education, or education with a concentration related to whatever specific area they were teaching about. The teachers from Junior High School onwards also often had bachelors degrees related to the area in which they taught. One even had a doctorate degree.
I find it highly unlikely that one individual would be capable of offering the same quality and depth of an education, as all of those people whose specialty was education. I also find it doubtful that all parents, or even a majority who want to homeschool their child are actually capable of this feet.
Secondly, I haven't spent the time to find it yet, but you have provided us with these studies, and the community as a whole found them laughable last time around. The studies were even supported by people who made homeschooling material, which biases the study right at the beginning, but when those homeschooling materials are actually researched, the subject material and books they are selling is even more laughable, and if any parent attempted to actually use them, I would class it as child abuse.
Edit #1:Thismight be the thread I'm talking about, its several pages long and I'm still reading it, but here you go. I'm sorry if its not, Atari pretty much crippled searching Community Chat using the forum's own search tools.Edit: It wasn't it. Just one of them.
Edit #2: Found it huzzahs! I hope the studies you wish to cite aren't the ones you used here because I and others already took care of those.
Last edited by Illusions; 08-08-2010 at 09:53 PM.
. . .
A. The parent has a better incentive to do a good job. In theory a teacher would have an incentive as well but we all know unions screwed that over.I'm uncertain how someone could come to the logical conclusion that it is better for a child to be educated by someone whose primary job and educational background is not that of an educator, and that one person could be just as good as many.
B. A "professional" can experience burn out.
C. There is less one on one instruction. Even teachers know this, which is why class size is a big issue in education.
D. Multiple teachers teach different subjects. There is a lack of consistency and progress. You can go from a class where the teacher is going beyond the basics and the students are learning at a high level. Next grade you get stuck with another teacher who teaches straight out of a text book. The next one goes off on random tangents.
E. Possibly what the educator learned when in college learning how to become a teacher was a bunch of liberal crap about "feelings" and promoting everyone self-esteem then giving kids a kick in the pants why the screw up.
Just for starters.
A piece of paper doesn't make a good teacher. Knowledge doesn't make a good teacher. RESULTS are what makes a good teacher. This is why it is critical to have effective standardized testing so that result can be measured and schools can determine which teachers are effective and which are garbage. At which point it would be necessary to take out of the garbage and hire better teachers.To further explain this, the vast majority of teachers I've had or met while attending public school were either working on, or had completed their masters degree in either education, or education with a concentration related to whatever specific area they were teaching about.
Its not like a home school parent can not utilize the assistance of a tutor for certain complex work or show their child how to teach themselves something using the internet or a text book. In fact that might even be a more effective means of teaching someone then just regurgitating answers...I find it highly unlikely that one individual would be capable of offering the same quality and depth of an education, as all of those people whose specialty was education. I also find it doubtful that all parents, or even a majority who want to homeschool their child are actually capable of this feet.
Ah the Tear method of reviewing something. "OMG AGENDA ITS BIASED" Sure that may be so but look at the underlining facts. If a study shows something and is open on their methodology dismissing it out of hand is lazy. Very few studies are done by impartial parties - period. Do you seriously question that home schooled children are less likely to go to prison?Secondly, I haven't spent the time to find it yet, but you have provided us with these studies, and the community as a whole found them laughable last time around.
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/543 leads to this PDF
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/543/666
Are you really doubting that home schooled children are less likely to succeeds then kids in public school? The idea is laughable.
Lewk...
"Because this was not a controlled experiment, the study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools and the results must be interpreted with caution."
In other words, that first study you linked does not answer the question of whether home schooling is better or not. It simply shows that home-schooled kids have a better education than non-home-schooled kids, on average. The real question, of course, is whether the same type of parents could have sent their kids to school and if their kids would have had a better education than those who were home-schooled.
Since... as we commonly discuss, the parental involvement plays a huge factor.. trying to find the right school (perhaps private), pushing for the more advanced classes for their kids, helping kids with homework and providing them with a healthy diet...when the two groups of parents have differing levels of commitment to their children, you won't be able to ferret out your answer.
I don't have a problem with advertising, I think we had posters with ads at my highschool. Mostly for movies, radio stations, new britney spears albums, stuff like that.Agreed with this, maybe linking sponsoring to a specific subject/activity is not always a good idea. And maybe it's better to keep politically sensitive groups out of schools either way to avoid problems.
Maybe I'm cynical, but about C).. well, I can see it happen that when schools get more money from corporate sources, the government will cut their funding (it's paid from property taxes right? What politician doesn't want to decrease the taxes when he wants more popularity), claiming 'they can get the money elsewhere', leaving the school in a worse place if a big sponsor drops out (and in pretty much the same place as they were during the sponsor deal, so no big advantage there). It's definitely leverage, but with a good contract and common sense it should be possible toavoid big problems there. One issue may be that in bad economic time, sponsors drop out quickly. That really affected cultural projects around here when the crisis hit - a lot of sponsors withdrew their support because they ran out of money, leaving those cultural projects vulnerable (they tend to draw ~1/3 of their budget from corporate sponsors).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Its an impossible experiment because one could always say "well if the kid had gone to school he would have done just as well." One can always turn around and claim that. Note - I get the idea that the parents who home school their kids may just be better parents and that is why the kid is successful. After all my position is that home schooling is a viable option. If it was a superior option I would assume superior parents would pick it over public schools then just plain ole regular parents.In other words, that first study you linked does not answer the question of whether home schooling is better or not. It simply shows that home-schooled kids have a better education than non-home-schooled kids, on average. The real question, of course, is whether the same type of parents could have sent their kids to school and if their kids would have had a better education than those who were home-schooled.
Sadly not everyone has the time and financial ability to home school their child. Furthermore it may not even be best. However if you believe in a society that values freedom and liberty you will trust that the parent will make the decision that works. All I ask is that the state not be biased towards one particularly form of education. Instead pay per pupil regardless of what the parents pick.
And don't think I'm not in support of accountability. If the parent wants to get the funds that would otherwise go to the school they have to prove that their child can do just as well on a standardized test as a public school child. Possibly even make it on a sliding scale ie X% of funds for X percentile, that way the incentive to do a good job is financial as well as parental. (Because after all money is the ultimate incentive).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote