Should public schools accept advertising?

One education professor doesn't think so.

Longtime educator Todd DeMitchell has a dark vision: He can see the day Staples has its logo splashed across school flooring it helped fund, or when Nike's trademark swoosh looms over the entrance of a high school's "Nike Gymnasium," or when "McLectures" take place at schools benefiting from the fast-food company's advertising. . . .

He calls it the "Googlization" of public education, reasoning that, like Google, schools can find themselves providing students with something they don't pay for while marketing them as a captive audience to deep-pocketed advertisers. . . .

But even more than that, he said commercializing schools calls into question a "societal shortcoming and shortsightedness" that strikes at the heart of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared education the most important function of government. 

I wouldn't want advertising to appear on tests. Otherwise, I don't yet see any reason to oppose it.

Comments

[Ted Craig]

I think they should sell ads in text books. I'm not kidding. Amazon.com could put ads in lit books, Dupont in chem books, etc. Or colleges could do it.

[Tom]

Selling ads would probably improve the quality of education. Advertisers would probably want to be associated with better schools, thus better schools could charge higher rates. Not only that, but teachers should be able to sell ad space on their clothes like NASCAR drivers.

[Mike]

Why would you draw the line at tests? What makes them so special to deserve to be an ad free zone - other than the fact that it might be an inconvenience for the teacher?

I can see it now - "McGraw-Hill is proud to be the official test sponsor of "Money & Banking". Or, "This accounting test is brought to you by Professor Newmark, KMPG, the AFT, the letter K, and the Alumni Association". Or even, "Good Luck, Kathy - Love Mom & Dad" - just like in the back of the yearbook.

The Nike Gymnasium is somewhat permanent - like a billboard - would more visible to a taxpayer like me - and more likely to be considered an eyesore.

An ad on a test is like one in a magazine - invisible to everyone except the test taker and quickly discarded.

When I was in school - I think we had something like Time magazine for kids - not sure if it had advertising.

I think the troubling aspect of this is that you have government education employees thinking outside the box - which can be good but is often bad - especially because the think in this case isn't about education (and the education right now isn't as good as it could be).

Best wishes and happy holidays,
Mike

[jorod]

Schools already train kids to be consumers. So, why not go all out and start advertizing?

[JorgXMcKie]

Advertising even on tests couldn't possibly distract students more than they are now. My good students wouldn't notice and the bad students wouldn't be hurt. Only that small group that fits into neither good nor bad would have a problem, and I'm not sure how it would affect them.

I just had a student who averaged 36% on 4 multiple choice test complain about failing the course. If the test were nothing but ads she/he might have actually have done better.

[michael]

If Brown said that education is an important function then the necessary conclusion is to remove government from administering it.

If you prefer the alternative then enroll your children in LAUSD and enjoy the quality of education it offers.

[Axel Kassel]

If there were no public schools, this question wouldn't even arise--and the students would be able to read the ads vying for vouchers.