Sponsored Schools AndCommercialized Classrooms

 

Schoolhouse CommercializingTrends in the 1990’s *

 

By

AlexMolnar

 

Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education(CACE)

School of Education

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

P.O. Box 413

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

 

August 1998

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report is a first attempt to provide acomprehensive and systematic analysis of commercializing trends in America’s schoolsand classrooms. The data reported here are the result of database searches onseven categories of schoolhouse commercialism covering the period 1990-1997.The number of citations that relate to commercializing activities can provideonly a rough approximation of the scope and development of the phenomenon.Nevertheless, the results are sobering.

 

The number of citations reportingon commercial activities in the schools has increased 154 percent between 1990and 1997, a finding that suggests that the 1990’s have become the decade ofsponsored schools and commercialized classrooms.

 

 

LargestCategory of Schoolhouse Commercialism: The largest area of schoolhouse commercialism appears to be Sponsorshipof Programs and Activities. Between 1990 and 1997 the number of citationsdescribing this category of commercial activity increased 199 percent. In 1997,the almost 1,400 citations documenting sponsorship activities suggest thatevents such as Greenbrier High School’s notorious “Coke in Education Day” may havebecome commonplace in American schools.

 

FastestGrowing Category of Schoolhouse Commercialism: The fastest growing commercial activity appears tobe Exclusive Agreements. The number of citations reporting on exclusivearrangements between schools and bottlers, sports apparel manufacturers, andother firms increased 495 percent between 1990 and 1997.

 

    

EmergingCategory of Schoolhouse Commercialism: Electronic Marketing, which includes television, radio, and theInternet/World Wide Web, is a relatively new development in schoolhousecommercial activity. Two of the three firms studied in this category have notbeen in operation for the entire period studied (one was founded in 1993, theother in 1996). Also, the extreme notoriety of Channel One in the earlynineties resulted in an enormous number of citations that makes it appear thatthe prevalence of this sort of commercial activity has, by comparison, declinedin the mid-nineties. However, the increase in the number of citations between1996 (183) and 1997 (256) suggests that this activity may increase over thenext several years.

 

StableCategories of Schoolhouse Commercialism: The categories of Sponsored Educational Materials and Incentive Programsare well-established commercial categories. The number of citations describingSponsored Educational Materials grew 313 percent between 1990 and 1997.However, the number of citations has remained relatively small (8 in 1990 and33 in 1997).

 

Incentive programs such as Campbell’s “Labels forEducation Program” and Pizza Hut’s “BOOK IT!” program drew more citations (96in 1990 and 81 in 1997) than Sponsored Educational Materials. Although thenumber of citations related to Incentive Programs declined slightly when 1990and 1997 citations are compared, the overall picture is one of a maturemarketing category that has become a common fixture in many American schools.

 

TrendsUnclear in Two Categories: On thesurface, the number of citations associated with Privatization suggests thatthe for-profit management of public schools has experienced explosive growthduring the 1990’s. Between 1990-1997 the number of citations increased 1,285percent. However, a large number of these citations were reports of financialand other problems associated with two of the five firms studied rather thandescriptions of the spread of privatization. Since 1994 the number of citationsin this category has trended downwards.

It is too early to tell whether this category islikely to grow in the future.

 

The number of citations reporting on Appropriation ofSpace has declined about 33 percent between 1990 and 1997. However, there arerelatively few citations in this category (43 in 1990 and 29 in 1997) whichmakes it difficult to assess whether this decline has any significance.

 

EducatorsAbsent from the Discussion: Despitethe pervasiveness of schoolhouse commercialism, and its continued rapid growth, the education press has had virtuallynothing to say about the issue. The seeming failure of the education communityto describe and attempt to understand and assess the impact of commercialactivities on the character and quality of schools and their programs is hardto explain and warrants further investigation.


 

 

 

Introduction

Be True to Your Cola?

GreenbrierHigh School in Evans, Ga., made international news this March when PrincipalGloria Hamilton suspended senior Mike Cameron. Mike, along with 1,200 or so ofhis classmates, was lined up in the school parking lot to spell out the word“Coke.” Each class had an assignment. Standing on letters carefully marked offby the band director, seniors formed the letter “C,” juniors “O,” sophomores“K,” and freshmen “E.” Photographers in a crane captured the moment on film asCoke executives, who had flown in to participate in Greenbrier’s “Coke inEducation Day,” looked on. During the photo opportunity, Cameron unveiled aPepsi shirt.[1]According to Mike, while delivering a dressing down in her office, principalHamilton not only told him he was being suspended for his disrespect butadmonished him for potentially costing the school a lot of money.[2]


Ms.Hamilton was apparently worried that Greenbrier’s chances of winning the $10,000prize in a national contest sponsored by Coke, as well as the opportunity tocollect $500 from the local Coke bottler, had been damaged by Mike’s irreverentact. Greenbrier High was competing to win the $10,000 prize offered by theCoca-Cola Company to the high school that developed the best plan for marketingCoke-sponsored promotional business discount cards. Local Coke bottlers offeredan additional $500 to the winning school in their territory. On the day thatMike Cameron exposed his Pepsi shirt in the Greenbrier High School parking lot,about 20 Coke officials were on hand to lecture on economics, provide technicalassistance to home economics students who were baking a Coke cake, and helpchemistry students analyze the sugar content of Coke. “Coke in Education Day”at Greenbrier High was described by Principal Hamilton as a “fun, instructionalevent.” The school received no money from the Coca-Cola company for organizingthe day’s activities.[3]

Surprisedby intense media attention to the incident at her school, Hamilton neverthelessstuck to her guns, commenting that “I don’t apologize for expecting my studentsto behave in school.” District Superintendent Tom Dorhmann defended hisprincipal and pronounced himself “flabbergasted” by the media attention. Heaccused Mike Cameron of manipulating the press and called Cameron’s act“premeditated.” Superintendent Dorhmann told The Washington Post “Thekid is preying on the press. He’s used you.”[4]Indeed, press reports were hardly flattering.


Thedirector of the ACLU in Atlanta told the Atlanta Constitution, “Thisconcerns me because basically, it’s pimping our kids. Is it worth $500 forstudents to be out there hustling Coke?”[5]Editorial opinion was no kinder, with editorial writers raising a host ofquestions such as: “... has American society fallen so far that teens can bepunished for not following the corporate party line?” ([Baton Rouge, La.] Advocate).[6]Under the headline “Student’s Act of Cola Defiance Was Refreshing,” The(Norfolk, Va.) Virginian-Pilot wrote “Enlightened, responsible corporateinvestment of time and money can be of significant help to hard-strappedschools everywhere; but to make the boosting of a business a part of the day’scurriculum is counterproductive.”[7]The Omaha World-Herald asked “What exactly is a school doing sponsoringa “Coke in Education Day” anyway? Promoting a commercial product to its captiveaudience of young people?”[8]The (Raleigh, N.C.) News and Observer was scathing: “Without evenknowing it, der furious fuhrer [Greenbrier principal Gloria Hamilton] wasimparting to the students a civics lesson in obsequiousness and greed. It isdisquieting to think that a kid could be kicked out of school for refusing to regardan impersonal multinational corporation with the same reverence that theprincipal does.”[9] And,according to Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen, the incident atGreenbrier taught students “... that money is more important than freedom ofchoice. It taught them that silence is more desirable than dissent, thatconformity is better than being different. And it taught them that there is noshame in selling out, if the price is right.”[10]

Themoney actually offered by Coke to the winning high school in its marketingcontest was, relatively speaking, minuscule. Greenbrier was competing for ashot at $10,000 in the national contest and $500 offered by a local bottler.This is a tiny fraction of the advertising dollars Coca-Cola committed to itscampaign to market its Coke discount card. Advertising Age reported thatthe company had a multi-million dollar budget for “one of its most elaborateconsumer promotions ever.” One Coke distributor called the marketing effort“... one of our strongest programs ever. We’re mainly going after kids, thejunior and senior high crowd.”[11]At Greenbrier, at least, it seems the company got the school administrationinto the bargain.


Inaddition to concerns about civil rights and about the values being taught, somecommentators worried about the health implications of Greenbrier’s “Coke inEducation Day.” Writing for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Bud Kennedy,for example, noted that “Colas and other caffeinated soft drinks cause anxiety,irritability and loss of concentration,” and commented puckishly, “I don’t knowwhether Greenbrier had enough students to spell out Caffeine Free Coca-ColaClassic.”[12] The SouthChina Morning Post questioned the motives of corporations pitching productsin schools. “The reason why the saga [at Greenbrier High School] strikes such achord among students and parents alike is because of the light it sheds on thesteamroller tactics of soft drinks and other corporations to turn schools intonothing more than supermarkets where children can also take lessons.”[13]And the Chicago Tribune argued “... schools shouldn’t be in the positionof selling captive students to advertisers, whatever the excuse. They areentrusted with children’s minds and they have no right to sell access to them.Even a quick glance at the sales pitches made by marketing companies peddlingpromotion ideas to schools makes it clear the whole point is to make money foradvertisers, not to help kids.”[14]  In a story published in London by TheIndependent, Marlin Schneider, a Wisconsin lawmaker, pointed out thepotential conflict of interest arising from corporate marketing activities inschools. He asked “What’s next? Some large company coughing up money and thentelling the school’s social studies department, ‘We don’t want you sayinganything bad about our labour or investment practices?’”[15]

Officialsat Greenbrier High School might be forgiven for being caught off guard by theintense and largely negative press coverage of their response to a studentwearing a Pepsi shirt at a “Coke in Education Day” photo op.  Devoting school time, school space, andstudent energy to corporate sponsored activities has become so widespread thatperhaps the most surprising thing about the Greenbrier incident is that ithasn’t happened before.

 


Tracking Schoolhouse Commercializing Trends

 

Methods, Limitations, andDefinitions

Thereis considerable consensus among people who follow marketing activities directedat children that these activities have increased substantially during the1990’s.  As a sub-category of children’smarketing activities, it may be reasonably assumed that efforts to get accessto schoolchildren for commercial advantage are increasing as well. While theanecdotal evidence that this is so seems overwhelming, prior to this report, nosource of comprehensive and systematic information about commercializing trendsin schools and classrooms existed.


Inpart, this is probably a reflection of the difficulty of gathering thenecessary information. Firms engaged in school-based commercial activities may,at different times, have an interest in making exaggerated claims about thenumber of children reached (in order to attract clients); remaining silent (toshield market research and product introduction information from competitors);or minimizing the size of their efforts (to lessen the possibility of anegative public reaction). In addition, the varied and particular purposes forwhich organizations gather data on school-focused commercializing activitiesresults in information that is fragmentary and often not comparable, and,therefore, not reliable as a basis for identifying overall trends.

Methods

Thisreport is a preliminary effort to provide researchers, policy makers, educators,and community members with comprehensive and systematic data about the nature,volume and direction of marketing activities aimed at schools and classrooms.The trends identified here are based on a bibliometric analysis of citationsdrawn from four bodies of literature: 1) the popular press, 2) the educationpress, 3) the business press, and 4) the advertising/marketing press. Databasesused, technical descriptions of the search terms employed, and data tables foreach graph reported below are contained in the Appendix.

Afterconducting an initial database search, preliminary categories of commercialactivity were modified and search terms were refined. Additional databasesearches were then conducted and samples of the articles identified were retrievedand read. This process was repeated until the categories of commercialism werewell defined and the search terms precisely stated. In drafting the finalreport, sample articles in each category of commercialism from each yearstudied were read and analyzed to help interpret the meaning and significanceof the numerical data.


Forseveral reasons, it is possible that the number of citations noted may beconservative and that the extent of commercialism reported here understates themagnitude of phenomenon. The education press, for example, is the only body ofliterature reviewed that strictly adheres to Library of Congress SubjectHeadings. In the other bodies of literature reviewed there are few consistentsubject headings, descriptors, or key words used in searches. Thus, regardlessof the descriptors employed, it was impossible to know if all of the relevantcitations had been identified. To mitigate this problem, multiple databasesearches were conducted using variations in the search terms used and in theproximity parameters identified for those terms within the texts searched.Synonyms were also used as search terms to help insure that the maximum numberof relevant citations was found. However, by excluding terms such as “higher education,”“college,” and “university” it is likely that at least some articles thatdiscussed a particular issue in relation to K-12 education and post-secondaryeducation were excluded from the data used in this report.

Limitations

Onlinesearching is a useful research tool. However, the data that result arenecessarily secondary data. Furthermore, a certain amount of artistry isinvolved in constructing the search terms. Search categories and terms aresometimes not precise; many of the terms used in this report are new; the namesof companies and organizations change; and articles may use acronyms or slang.In addition, many writers may not use terms such as “school commercialism”directly, which means the content of the various categories was derived throughthe use of a series of surrogate terms. In considering the data in this reportthe reader should, therefore, bear the following limitations in mind:

1.      The databases used for this report (Lexis-Nexis andH.W. Wilson Education Index) index different types of materials and differentlevels of materials. For example, the Lexis-Nexis Regional News database picksup small, local newspapers, while the H.W. Wilson database covers only majorstories from the education press.

2.      The H.W. Wilson Education Index uses Library ofCongress Subject Headings assignments. The Lexis-Nexis database does not. Thismeans that the search terms used will be somewhat different for each database.In addition, some concepts such as “exclusive sales” are not controlled vocabularyterms, i.e., Library of Congress Subject Headings; whereas, “exclusivecontract,” in contrast, is. Thus, for many searches it was necessary to use theless precise method of keyword searching instead of subject searches.

3.      Stop words, such as “the,” “an,” “a,” “to,” etc., arenot indexed in either database. This creates a potential problem when searchingfor a phrase such as “Alternative Public Schools.” Articles may include aphrase such as: “There are alternatives to public schools.” Such articles wouldbe pulled up even though they had nothing to do with the company AlternativePublic Schools. To guard against this problem, the CAPS feature in theLexis-Nexis database was used. This feature is intended to insure that onlyphrases in which each word is capitalized are retrieved. However, this methodis not foolproof. Some irrelevant citations are, therefore, likely to have beenretrieved.

4.      The Lexis-Nexis news databases cover the AssociatedPress and UPI. This results in the duplication of stories. A large number ofstories about Greenbrier High School’s “Coke in Education Day” were, forexample, rewrites of the same AP story. Nevertheless, because of differentbylines assigned to a story, and the small but potentially significant changesthat may be made in it before it is republished, it was decided that the dangerof disregarding many worthwhile citations was greater than the distortingeffect of duplicated citations.

5.      When there is a widely publicized story such asGreenbrier’s “Coke in Education Day,” the large number of citations must beconsidered carefully. A large number of citations for a few spectacular storiescould make it appear that a particular commercializing activity is morewidespread than it actually is. Since “Coke in Education Day” took place in1998, it did not influence the data reported here. However, in the period1990-1997, the problems encountered by two firms attempting to run for-profitschools skewed the number of citations in the privatization category upwards inthe early 1990s.

6.      The data collected from indexing databases aresecondary data. They can never provide as accurate a picture as would bepossible using survey methods with a large number of schools.

 

Definitions

Followingpreliminary database searches, seven sometimes-overlapping categories ofcommercial activity in the schools were identified. The quantitative datareported here are the number of citations for commercializing activities foundwithin each of the seven categories listed below for each year in the eight-yearperiod from 1990-1997. The variance in the number of citations from year toyear was used to identify trends.

The sevencategories of schoolhouse commercialism discussed in this report are:

1)   Sponsorship of Programs and Activities. Corporations paying for or subsidizing schoolevents and/or one-time activities in return for the right to associate theirname with the events and activities. This may also include school contests.


2)   Exclusive Agreements. Agreements between schools and corporations thatgive corporations the exclusive right to sell and promote their goods and/orservices in the school or school district. In return the district or schoolreceives a percentage of the profits derived from the arrangement. Exclusiveagreements may also entail granting a corporation the right to be the solesupplier of a product or service and thus associate its products withactivities such as high school basketball programs.

3)   Incentive Programs. Corporate programs that provide money, goods, orservices to a school or school district when its students, parents, or staffengage in a specified activity, such as collecting particular product labels orcash register receipts from particular stores.

4)   Appropriation of Space. The allocation of school space such as scoreboards,rooftops, bulletin boards, walls, and textbooks on which corporations may placecorporate logos and/or advertising messages.

5)   Sponsored Educational Materials. Materials supplied by corporations and/or tradeassociations that claim to have an instructional content.

6)   Electronic Marketing. The provision of electronic programming and/orequipment in return for the right to advertise to students and/or theirfamilies and community members in school or when they contact the school ordistrict.

7)    Privatization. Management of schools or school programs by private for-profitcorporations or other non-public entities.

 

The results of database searches relevant to each ofthese categories are discussed in turn below.   

 

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

Resultsof the review of popular, education, business, and marketing/advertising pressdatabases for the period 1990-1997 indicate that in each database the number ofcitations for this category of commercial activity increased between 1990 and1997. Overall, the number of reports of corporate sponsorship activities in theschools increased approximately 199 percent during this eight-year period. (SeeGraph 1 on following page.)

 

Sponsorshipof athletic events opened the door. In 1984, for example, the Idaho High SchoolActivities Association negotiated an agreement with the United Dairymen ofIdaho that provided $37,000 for the travel expenses of students participatingin boys and girls basketball tournaments.[16]By 1988 Newsday was accurately predicting that it was only a matter oftime before “... we see something like the ‘Reebok/New York State High SchoolBasketball Tournament,’ the ‘Nike/New York Scholastic Wrestling Championship,’or the ‘Coca-Cola/New York Public School Track Meet.’”[17]

It is now common for marketing firms to negotiate awide variety of sports-related sponsorship agreements that funnel money toschools. The work of one such firm, School Properties, Inc., was described in a1991 Forbes magazine article. The firm, based in Yorba Linda, Calif.,was founded in 1987 to seek exclusive rights to sell sponsorships for regionaland state championships in all sports. School Properties gets 35 percent of thetake the first year and 25 percent thereafter. In 1991 the firm negotiated a$2.8 million multi-year contract between Reebok and California InterscholasticFederation (CIF). The deal guaranteed that all California state play-offcompetitions and title events would be called the “CIF/Reebok Championships.”[18]According to the Sacramento Bee, by 1993, 27 percent of CIF’s 500-schoolSouthern Section’s $1.1 million budget came from corporate sponsorship,creating financial dependency and leaving the organization vulnerable tocorporate decisions made on the basis of corporate, not school, priorities. CIFthus faced a financial crisis when Reebok announced in 1993 that it would notrenew its contract because it wanted to focus on product-driven advertising.[19]


Duringthe nineties, School Properties, Inc., has also signed up Hardee’s and FirstSecurity Bank for a sponsorship agreement in Utah, and Kraft, General Foods,and Burger King for one in Alaska. In the words of the Forbes article“... you can thank [School Properties founder] Don Baird for bringing togetherbig-time advertising and boondock jocks.”

Someeducators such as Pinellas County Florida athletic director Bob Hosack areconcerned. Hosack commented to the St. Petersburg Times, “It’s a shamewe have to do these things to raise money. But it’s getting to a point wherecosts are so high, schools throughout the state and county are raising theirown money. Just about anything they can think of that’s legal is fair game.”[20]


Despitesuch misgivings, in the 1990’s sponsorship activities have moved well beyondathletics. They touch on almost every aspect of school life. School districtsand professional education organizations actively solicit sponsorships andsometimes form consortia to do so.  Inthe early nineties, for example, five Illinois education associations (IllinoisAssociation of School Administrators, Illinois Association of School Boards,Illinois Association of School Business Officials, Illinois PrincipalsAssociation, Illinois High School Association) formed a school licensingcooperative. In 1994 the Chicago Tribune reported that the group haddecided to hire School Properties, Inc., to oversee the marketing of Illinoisschools. According to Walt Warfield, the executive director of the IllinoisAssociation of School Administrators, “We understand the power of a companybeing able to say, for example, ‘We’re the official soft drink of the Illinoisschools.’ We want to capitalize on that.” David Turner, executive director ofthe Illinois Principals Association acknowledged that idea was commercial. Hecommented, “Sure it’s commercial. Of course, it’s commercial. But money’stight. We’re looking for ways to augment school financing. What’s for sale is arelationship with Illinois schools.”[21]  The Illinois organization is not justinterested in negotiating exclusive agreements with soft drink companies. Thecooperative gets ¾ of one percent of the cost of purchases made byparticipating Illinois residents who use its affinity credit card.[22]

TheJefferson County Colorado School District and US West Communications Group havesigned a ten-year $2 million agreement that makes the phone company the schooldistrict’s “strategic supplier.” Under the terms of the deal US West will havenaming rights to a planned high school sports stadium. The company will alsooffer school groups phone cards with the school district logo that they cansell for a commission to raise money for schools.[23]

TheDenver school district created a Community Sponsorship of the Curriculumprogram through which it has invited local and national companies to supportthe district’s education programs in return for advertising rights throughoutthe district. Sunkist, for example, sponsored the Denver’s Comprehensive HealthInitiative. In return the company was given space for its “Just One — A WholeDay’s Vitamin C” advertising campaign on school buses, scoreboards, and printmaterial sent home with students.[24]

Othersponsorship activities reported during 1997 included a Chips Ahoy! contest inwhich students were asked to verify that there were indeed 1,000 chips in everybag of Chips Ahoy! cookies. Contestants then sent in essays or videos thatdemonstrated ingenious ways of counting the chips. Three finalists competed forthe top prize of $25,000 in scholarships.


TheChips Ahoy! contest was launched by Nabisco after the company received 130letters from an elementary school in Wadesboro, N.C. Students complained thatthey had been able to locate only 600 of the promised chips and accused thecompany of false advertising and lying. According to Selling to Kids, bylaunching the contest in response to its 600 chip problem, Nabisco not only gotextensive press coverage they gained “access to schools and kids nationwide.” [25]

InMaryland, AT&T signed on with the Family Education Network to launch aninitiative to connect parents to their children’s schools via the Internet. Inreturn for its $500,000, AT&T got corporate banners on each school web siteand the rights to sell AT&T long distance and Internet access. MarylandAT&T customers could also earn “Learning Points” that schools could redeemfor Internet accounts and computer equipment.[26]

TheMars candy company created a half-finished Halloween commercial for students tocomplete. The ad was broadcast on Channel One, a twelve-minute current eventsprogram containing two minutes of commercials broadcast into approximately12,000 middle and high schools. Students then got to vote on one of threeendings. By casting their vote, via a toll-free telephone call, students wereentered in a sweepstakes with two $5,000 first prizes and 100 second prizes of24 compact discs.[27]

Explaining the trend toward corporate sponsorships ofschool activities

Thejustification for the sponsorship agreements most often used by educators isthe need for money. Money also drives the corporate side of the equation. It isestimated that children between the ages of 4-12 purchase or influence thepurchase of goods and services worth nearly $500 billion a year.[28]David Siegel, general manager of Small Talk, a division of Sive/Young &Rubicam, notes that advertising directed at children has increased twenty-foldin the past decade to $2 billion.[29]Small wonder marketing professor James McNeal describes children as “thebrightest star in the consumer constellation.” According to McNeal, “Virtuallyevery consumer-goods industry, from airlines to zinnia-seed sellers, targetskids.”[30]

Withschool districts short of cash and the consumer power of children growing, it isnot surprising that the commercial pressure on schools is increasing steadily.Ira Mayer, publisher of Youth Markets Alert, a newsletter that tracksdevelopments in marketing to children, believes that it is the purchasing powerof kids that has led to an increase in both the sophistication and themagnitude of the advertising directed at them.[31]And, according to Youth Markets Alert associate editor Gene Newman, “Inthe past, there was maybe more of a feeling that shameless promotion in schoolwasn’t right, that you should keep education separate. I think in today’sbusiness climate, that is definitely beginning to change.”[32]

Exclusive Agreements


Withthe exception of Privatization, no area of commercial activity in the schoolshas shown faster growth in the number of citations that refer to it thanexclusive agreements. Although exclusive contracts are sometimes hard todistinguish from sponsorship agreements they do represent a separate focus ofmarketing activity.

Thenumber of popular press stories about exclusive agreements has shownconsiderable increase since 1990. (See Graph 2 on following page.) In 1990there were 6 stories in the popular press; by 1997 the number had increased to80. Clearly exclusive contracts are a hot trend. Within this category no typeof exclusive agreements are currently hotter than contracts for the exclusiveright to sell soft drinks. The number of citations in the popular press about“pouring rights” agreements jumped from 2 in 1996 to 51 in 1997. (See Tables 1and 1.1 in Appendix.) There are considerably fewer citations for exclusiveagreements between athletic apparel manufacturers and school districts. In 1997there were, for example, 51 citations in the popular press involving exclusivecontracts with bottlers and only 7 for exclusive agreements with sports wearcompanies. In the four-year period 1990-1993 there were 4 citations. For theperiod 1994-1997, the total increased to 21.

 

The trend toward exclusive contracts especially withbottlers and athletic apparel companies may reflect corporate recognition that,as James McNeal has found, school-age children spend about a third of theirmoney on food and beverages and that apparel spending is the fastest growingcategory of the children’s market.[33]

Soft drink bottlers and the school market

From Colorado, to Texas, to Ohio, exclusive “pouringrights” agreements between soft drink companies and school districts provide agood illustration of how schools chronically short of money are attempting toturn access to their students into cash. As Pepsico spokesman Larry Jabbonskytold The New York Times, “Schools are serving up exclusivity as acarrot. They need to generate funds. At the same time we are constantly lookingfor new ways to broaden our exposure among young people. It’s a pretty naturalinterdependent fit.” [34]


In 1998 the Oakland, Calif.-based Center forCommercial-Free Public Education identified 24 exclusive contracts betweenbottlers and school districts with another 25 under consideration.[35]The volume of press reports on the topic suggests that these figures mayunderstate the prevalence of the practice. DD Marketing, based in Pueblo,Colo., for example, negotiates sponsorships and exclusive agreements for 240high schools. The typical exclusive contract with a soft drink bottler gives aschool or district a percentage of the sales derived from soft drink purchases.In some cases there are additional incentives such as score boards, coolers,and free products for special events.[36]

In 1997 one of the more unusual exclusiveagreements was announced by Dr Pepper and the Grapevine-Colleyville schooldistrict in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. As part of its 10-year, $4 milliondollar exclusive agreement with Dr Pepper, the district allowed the company topaint its logo atop the high school building. The school’s roof was of interestto Dr Pepper officials because it can be seen from planes taking off andlanding at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Grapevine-Colleyvilledeputy superintendent, Larry Groppel told The Houston Chronicle, “If itweren’t for the acute need for funds we would never have entered into anythinglike this. ... It’s totally driven by need.”[37]

TheMadison, Wis., school district signed a more conventional three-year contractthat could potentially net the district $1.5 million over three years. Inaddition, the district received a $100,000 “signing bonus,” $5,000 annualteacher-of-the-year scholarship, $5,000 to support students in annual marketingcompetitions, two $5-an-hour internships for students handling Coke promotionalactivities, a summer internship, and a post-graduation position with Coke forone student.[38]

Athletic apparel companies and the school market

Havingsaturated the college market, manufacturers of athletic apparel, primarily Nikeand Reebok, have been turning increasing attention to high school athletics,described by the Sacramento Bee as “one of the last untapped markets forcorporations looking to tie themselves to a wholesome and marketableactivity.”  According to Bill Paterson,author of the Bee article, another probable factor in Nike’s decision toassociate itself with high school athletics is the company’s need to overcomethe negative publicity associated with minority hiring, exploitation of foreignworkers, and victimization of poor African-American children through itsadvertising practices.[39]

Athleticapparel agreements are an opportunity that at least some educators seem towelcome. Randy Quinn, executive director of the Colorado Association of SchoolBoards told The Denver Post: “It started on the university level. Nobodyblinks an eye when Nike arranges for a contract with university football teams,or someone sponsors a scoreboard in university stadiums. The next logicalprogression in that movement would be the public schools. ... Given the realityof economics and the scramble for dollars, it just seems to reflect reality.”[40]

In1996 the Financial Network, a service of CNN, reported on the trend anddescribed the competition between sportswear companies to represent high schoolbasketball programs as a war, suggesting that it was only a matter of timebefore the battle lines ran through elementary schools. The Nike strategy seemsto be to go after the best teams in the biggest markets. Reebok has tended tofavor more broadly based agreements. According to CNN, Nike pays an undisclosednumber of high school teams $20,000 to wear Nike gear. Mike Levine, director ofmarketing at Athletes and Artists, described Nike as a company with littleshame in promoting its products. According to Levine, “This is the latest surgein that — I don’t want to call it arrogance. I will call it pride in what theyare doing.”[41]


Manyschool districts don’t seem to be interested in Nike’s or any othercorporation’s pride — they want the money. As Ron Lynch, athletic director ofthe Alvin, Texas, school district told The Houston Chronicle: “Withbudgets being tight in school districts, it’s hard to get uniforms. … Becausemoney is tight we’re doing everything we can to try and find ways in which tohelp.”[42]

Schoolsaccepting money and equipment from athletic apparel companies run the risk,however, of creating conflicts of interest potentially harmful to students andthe integrity of their programs, a danger that has officials at the collegelevel worried. Bill Friday, former president of the University of NorthCarolina, told Newsweek in 1996: “They [Nike] influence the coaches’salary, they influence who wears what, and prescribe what logo is worn. I thinkthey’ve gone too far.”[43]

Occasional controversy

Sponsorshipsand exclusive agreements are becoming more and more common; they are, however,sometimes a source of controversy. Seattle superintendent John Stanfordproposed in 1996 that, as a way of reducing a projected $35 million budgetshortfall, the Seattle School Board allow him to solicit major national firmsto enter into advertising agreements with the district. The idea was socontroversial that after a series of public meetings at which he was roundlycriticized for attempting to sell the district’s children to advertisers, thesuperintendent was forced to back away from his plan.[44] 


Inearly 1998, Milwaukee Public School Superintendent Alan Brown announced that hewould recommend that the Milwaukee Board of School Directors enter into acontract with Pepsico that would give the soft drink bottler the exclusiveright to market its products in Milwaukee’s public schools. SuperintendentBrown estimated that the three-year agreement would net the school district$5.2 million. Brown’s recommendation immediately came under fire from highschool principals who had already cut deals with other bottlers and fromcommunity members who opposed the idea of offering any firm an exclusiveagreement. In addition, the city attorney found that the way the agreement wasnegotiated and its potential violation of the school district’s advertisingguidelines might make it illegal. As a result, Brown was forced to withdrawfrom the proposed deal.[45]

TheSeattle and Milwaukee cases appear, however, to be exceptions. In Palmyra,Wis., for example, high school principal Jeff Tortomasi explained “we playedone [bottling firm] off the other” to get what school officials felt was thebest deal.  Greendale, Wis., athleticdirector Jim Andrus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The way moneyis with the revenue caps, for us to look away and say, ‘We don’t want to getinto that,’ it’s kind of stupid.” [46]Asked by the Dallas Morning News how much money was in corporateagreements, Dave Fry, executive director of the Illinois High SchoolAssociation, replied, “Who knows? There’s got to be millions of dollars. Letyour mind go. The imagination is the limit.”[47]

The motives of marketers

Theimagination is the limit for advertisers. And the stakes are high, ascorporations try to “brand” children early. Asked by The Pittsburgh Business Times why sports firms are interestedin sponsorship agreements with schools, Ted Black, an attorney with thePittsburgh firm Katarincic & Salmon, commented that “The number-one reasonis to build brand loyalty and to build it as early as possible.” Kevin Popovic,a marketing specialist with The St. George Group, noted that “Once you have aloyal customer, you really have to do something to lose him. Companies aremaking the investment and buying that market early.”[48]

Apparentlythe strategy is a success. According James McNeal, about ninety percent of theproduct requests made by children to their parents are by brand name. He arguesthat “Customers cultivated as children may be critical of changes in products,both those they love and hate. But they will probably be less resistant to priceincreases and size reductions.”[49]George Carey, the president of Just Kid, Inc., a Stamford, Conn., marketingcompany, reported that his firm’s research found that when his company “askedkids to draw something cool, they overwhelmingly drew a brand.”[50]Technos magazine reports that market research shows that “... brandnames are important to kids, because they help young consumers forge andexpress their identities. If marketers can capitalize on that need forself-expression, if they can woo and win the child, they’re likely to enjoy hisor her loyalty for the next 70 years.”[51]Thus, the message to marketers is clear: Establish product loyalty as soon aspossible. Schools represent an attractive venue for advertisers because, toparaphrase Willy Sutton, that’s where the children are, and because theyrepresent one of the least ad-saturated environments available.

The financial payout and potential trade-offsinvolved when schools sign on with marketers

Despitethe promise of millions of dollars in new revenue for schools, it is by nomeans clear that the fiscal benefits are as great as supporters of sponsorshipprograms and other commercializing activities suggest. In 1993, ColoradoSprings School District 11 was the first in the nation to launch acomprehensive campaign to offer advertisers a chance to rent space in itshallways, on its buses, and at other locations on its property. MarketingNews reports that between 1993 and 1997 the district received $338,680 fromadvertisers. With approximately 36,000 students, that works out to about $2.50per student per year over the four-year period, hardly an amount that seemsdestined to make a much of an impact on the district’s finances. [52]It is possible that the real financial winners in the trend toward sponsorshipand exclusive sales agreements are not schools but the firms that broker thedeals. In a 1997 editorial, the Dallas Business Journal pointed out thatmarketing firms that help negotiate agreements between school districts andcorporations can take up to 40 percent of corporate payout.[53]

In1997, Colorado Springs District 11 signed a 10-year exclusive agreement withCoca-Cola that the district projects is worth about $8.1 million, a figure thatrepresents less than 1 percent of the district’s budget. If the district meets“sales incentive thresholds,” the contract could be worth up to $11.1 millionaccording to district officials.[54]The existence of “sales incentives” underlines the kind of conflict of interestthat critics argue is inherent in exclusive sales agreements. The ColoradoSprings school district will not only profit from the sale of a particularbrand of soft drink, it now has a financial incentive to promote the greatestpossible consumption of that soft drink as well. Such a situation potentiallyplaces the Colorado Springs school district in the position of implicitlyasking students to ignore the health and nutrition advice they are likelygetting in the district’s curriculum in order to benefit the districtfinancially by drinking as much of Coke’s soft drink products as possible.

Incentive programs


Corporateincentive programs are, at least as far as database citations are concerned, amature school marketing method.

When1990 and 1997 are compared, the number of citations related to incentiveprograms declined. (See Graph 3 on following page.) However, the four-yearperiod from 1994-1997 shows a 28% increase in overall citations (329) whencompared with the four-year period from 1990-1993 (257), an increase that isentirely the result of the increase in the number of citations in the popularpress. The business and advertising/marketing presses reveal no trend.According to the absolute number of citations, incentive programs are thethird-lowest ranked commercializing category in 1997. This does not necessarilymean, however, that incentive programs are disappearing. They continue to popup in a great number of different forms.

TheCampbell’s Labels for Education Program has been around since 1973 and has becomea fixture in “tens of thousands of schools” according to the company.[55]In this program, schools can trade in labels from Campbell’s products for avariety of equipment such as slide projectors, basketballs, film strips,computers — even a 15-passenger van. According to the New York Times, at59 cents for a can of soup it would take $649,000 in soup sales to earn thevan. The computer could be had for $131,747.[56]


 

Theschool incentive programs are not limited to large conglomerates such asCampbell’s soup. In 1994, Silicon Valley parent and professional marketerDarren Martin founded Businesses United with Schools (BUS). Martin explainsthat “We wanted to establish an even exchange. So often in the past, schoolshave gone to businesses with their hand out. Honestly, I think they werebeginning to wear out their welcome.” The “even exchange” offered by BUS isfairly straight-forward. Businesses pay an annual fee ($540) to place aone-time ad in BUS’s monthly directory. The directory is distributed inparticipating schools. When students and their parents shop at businesseslisted in the BUS directory, they turn their receipts in to the school. Theschool turns the receipts over to BUS. BUS then collects a prearrangedpercentage (anywhere from l percent to 10 percent) of the sales total from thefirm whose receipts have been collected and gives the money to the school.Participating schools pay BUS an annual fee of between $100 and $150.[57]

ServiceMarketing Group’s “Apples for the Students” was one of several programsdeveloped in the nineties to encourage children and parents to shop atparticular stores by offering schools a chance to turn cash register receiptsinto computer equipment. Stores use the promotion to attract customers andencourage purchases in the name of a worthy cause. Aside from questions aboutthe desirability of schools encouraging families to shop at a particular store,there were other challenges to the “win-win” view promoted by marketing firms.For example, according to some reports, the firms that provided the computerequipment were able to mark up the cost of the equipment provided as much as 40percent.[58]Also, it took receipts worth a considerable amount of money to get theequipment. One Wisconsin school reported that it had collected $500,000 worthof receipts from its students and had earned computers worth approximately$3,000. In other words, the Apples for the Students incentive program paid theschool about seven-tenths of one cent for every dollar’s worth of receipts theycollected.[59]

.A company called A+ America lined up corporate sponsors such as LotusDevelopment, MCI, and Sun. When students and their parents purchased asponsoring company’s product they turned in their proofs of purchase to theirschool which, in turn, “cashes them in” for products. For example, 200 familiessigning on with MCI could earn the school a personal computer.[60]


In1996, Blockbuster video stores launched a program in Hawaii called Viewing CanReward. In this program, districts received video cassette recorders when theirstudents or family members turned in punch cards showing that a combined totalof 5000 movies or video games had been rented.[61]

Alsoin 1996, the (Des Moines, Iowa) Business Record reported that Pepsi wasworking with 110 schools with its “School Caps” program. Students collect bluebottle caps from select Pepsi products and turn them in to their school, whichcan then collect 5 cents from Pepsi for every cap. In the view of the BusinessRecord these “... give-and-take relationships enhance business sales andprovide much needed auxiliary funds to educational facilities.”[62]

In1997 The Boston Globe reported that General Mills had “... managed toswitch thousands of Special K eaters over to marshmallow-laced Lucky Charms bygiving cash to students.” The story went on to explain that students at ThomasDitson school had collected 27,000 box tops (117 per student) in a GeneralMills promotion and reported that parents had stopped buying Post or Kellogg’s.The cause of this devotion to General Mills was the 15 cents per box of $3.99cereal purchased that the company paid participating schools.[63]

Notall incentive programs involve equipment or cash. Some say they promotelearning. Perhaps the best example of a corporate sponsored learning incentiveprogram is Pizza Hut’s BOOK IT! program. BOOK IT! has been around for over adecade and millions of children have participated. Students whose teachers areparticipating in this program are rewarded with a pizza if they meet themonthly reading goals that their teacher has established for them. If all ofthe children in the class meet their goals for four out of the five months ofthe program, the class wins a pizza party. Classes that meet their reading goalfor all five months qualify for the “Readers Honor Roll,” a record of theiraccomplishment kept by their teacher and the principal.[64]Pizza Hut gets its name associated with a worthy cause and an opportunity topromote its products to students and their families.


Asthe brochure for the 1997 Kids Power Marketing conference announced topotential corporate clients, “Discover your own river of revenue at theschoolhouse gates. ... Whether it’s first-graders learning to read or teenagersshopping for their first car, we can guarantee an introduction of your productand your company to these students in the traditional setting of theclassroom.”[65]Incentive programs continue to be an accepted way for corporations to dive intothe school market.

Appropriation of Space

“Clutter”is a major problem for marketers. This is because virtually every public spacein the U.S., from bus stop benches to grocery carts, that can possibly be usedto promote a product has already been covered. In such an ad-heavy environment,making an ad stand out is by no means easy. From this perspective theattraction of schools and classrooms is obvious. Not only are they filled withchildren with money to spend, they are also, relatively speaking, ad-free.  However, the situation has been changing.

Whenthe number of citations in the Appropriation of Space category for 1990 (43) iscompared to the 1997 total (29), it appears that the incidence of thismarketing activity is lessening. However this may not be the case. Overall, thenumber of citations in the Appropriation of Space category increased when thefour-year period 1994-1997 (122) is compared to the four-year period 1990-1993(103). Although none of the databases revealed a clear trend, in terms ofabsolute numbers of citations, the greatest interest in this category hasconsistently been in the advertising/marketing press. (See Graph 4 on followingpage.)

In1997, parents in Seattle spent a day walking through thirty schools in theircommunity to check for commercial activities. As a result, they were able tocompile a thick dossier containing hundreds of examples of commercialism.[66]From school rooftops to telephone kiosks; from cafeteria menus to computerscreen savers; from book covers to World Wide Web sites, schools in the U.S.are no longer “clutter-free.”

 

 

Accordingto Education Week, for $1,000 the Grapevine-Colleyville school districtoffers advertisers a two-by-five feet sign in the gym and daily advertising onthe schools’ TV station. Add another $4,000 and it can put a signs on outdoorstadiums and the district’s buses. $15,000 is the price of a “deluxeadvertising package” that includes its name on the district’s voice mail systemand signage rights to a school rooftop visible from planes taking off andlanding at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.[67]

Atthe Hillsborough School District in Florida, according to the St. PetersburgTimes, thirty-three banners advertising everything from car dealers todoctors hang on the gym wall.[68]


Grapevine-Colleyville,Hillsborough, and many other school districts across the country are following inthe footsteps of Colorado Springs District 11. The Colorado Springs schooldistrict made national news when it became the first in the nation to selladvertising space on the sides of its school buses. The Colorado Springs publicschools are now filled with posters pitching products such as candy and softdrinks. According to a spokesman for Cub Foods, which has a $12,000 contractwith the district, “It’s always in the back of our minds to improve sales.We’re building on the image we have in the community of being involved. Andthat’s important.” Advertising has become such a prominent feature of life inthe Colorado Springs district that it has its own internal advertising manager.[69]

CoverConcepts, of New York City, distributes textbook covers to thousands of schoolsacross the country. The covers feature ads for products such as Nike athleticshoes and are sent to schools free on request. Since, according to thecompany’s estimates, 85% of the country’s public schools require students tocover their books, the potential market is enormous. Cover Concepts earns itsmoney by selling ad space on its book covers.[70]A company can buy coverage on the flap, the front cover, or the entire sheet.[71]Cover Concepts bases its rates on estimates of how many times a student seesthe cover during its five-month run.[72]According to company president Steve Schulman, “Advertisers get ads in theschools, and kids get a book cover that’s trendy and free.”[73]

Ina variation on the theme, School Marketing Partners makes its money sellingadvertising space on school lunch menu calendars to national advertisers,charging from $10,000 to $478,000 for space on its send-home calendars.[74]North of the border, ScreenAd Digital Billboards is attempting to coverelectronic space in Canadian schools with ads. School districts that approvewill have screen savers on their computers that, on a fifteen-minute cycle,flash a mix of trivia, information, motivational messages — and a corporatelogo.[75]


Appropriatingschool space is an attractive strategy for marketers. However, not allcorporations are willing to limit themselves to advertising on whateversurfaces schools have to offer. Many want to put their messages in the heart ofschool’s educational program by sponsoring educational materials.

SponsoredEducational Materials

Sponsorededucational materials have been around for a long time. The magazine MarketingTools has traced corporate sponsored educational materials as far back as1890 when a paint company developed a handout on primary and secondary colorsintended to be distributed in school art classes. The handout also contained aplug for the company’s products.[76]By 1929 the issue was prominent enough for the National Education Associationto empanel a committee (The Committee on Propaganda in the Schools) to studythe matter.[77] Despitesome occasionally harsh criticisms of the practice, sponsored educationalmaterials have become a staple of marketers who want to put a corporate messagein the school. In its 1995 publication Captive Kids, Consumers Unionevaluated over 100 of the sponsored materials provided by corporations, tradegroups, and others and found the vast majority were highly commercial,educationally trivial, or both.[78]

Producersof sponsored materials include Enterprise for Education, Learning Enrichment,Inc., Lifetime Learning Systems, The Mazer Corporation, Modern EducationServices (formerly Modern Talking Picture Service), and Scholastic, Inc.Together these firms claim to put their clients’ materials in the hands ofmillions of teachers, kindergarten through college, a year. As an elementaryschool principal in Washington commented to The New York Times, “We getthem every day.” According to Dominic Kinsley, president of Lifetime Learning,the number of curriculum projects the firm worked on in 1997 was four timesgreater than a decade earlier.[79]


Thenumber of citations found in the four-year period 1994-1997 in all presses hasincreased significantly when compared to the number of citations found duringthe period 1990-1993. The number of citations in the popular press databaseincreased 52 percent from a total of 33 in 1990-1993 to 50 in 1994-1997. In theadvertising/marketing database the number of citations increased from a totalof 21 in 1990-1993 to 30 in 1994-1997, an increase of approximately 43 percent.In absolute terms, sponsored educational materials’ 33 citations make it thesixth-largest commercializing category in 1997. (See Graph 5 on followingpage.)

Despitethe apparent prevalence of sponsored educational materials, there has beenvirtually no discussion of them in the education press. The education pressdatabase contained a total of 4 citations for the four-year period from1990-1993. The total for the period 1994-1997 rose to 9. The business pressdatabase contained 14 citations about sponsored materials between 1990-1993.Between 1994-1997 the number of citations totaled 25. It would appear thatdespite their pervasiveness in U.S. schools, sponsored educational materialsare not considered an important issue by either educators or corporations ingeneral. Marketers and the general public seem to be more interested.


Sponsoredmaterials are rarely created with an enduring educational need in mind. As aresult, the multitude of materials produced by and for corporations are hard tocatalogue because they very often have a short lifetime. There is no centralclearinghouse that receives and catalogues them.

Sponsoredmaterials are created to achieve one or more corporate purposes. They may helpa corporation or industry tell its “story” about a controversial issue, such asenvironmental degradation that involves its business (e.g., GM’s “I Need theEARTH and the EARTH Needs Me” or Proctor and Gamble’s “Decision Earth”); sell aproduct (e.g., “Gushers Wonders of the World” produced by Lifetime Learning forGeneral Mills’ Gushers fruit snacks); or burnish its image as a good corporatecitizen (e.g., Chrysler Corporation’s “Chrysler Learning Connection” program).

Thevariety of sponsored educational materials is enormous. In 1997, for example,Kaleidoscope Educational Sampling Programs created a “Back to School” programfor Sports Illustrated.[80]Paradise Foods, Inc., the franchiser of Heavenly Ham Retail Stores, contributed“Pilgrims & Progress: The History of Prepared Foods in America,” which wasdistributed to 40,000 fifth graders during the Thanksgiving season.[81]And the Nike corporation distributed a recycling unit that featured therecyclable qualities of its athletic shoes.[82]

Itis now common for sponsored materials to include some sort of audiovisual orelectronic component, however, electronic marketing in schools merits acategory of its own.

Electronic Marketing


Inorder to gauge the growth of electronic marketing, the searches were conductedusing the names of three businesses, each of which focuses on a differentelectronic medium: Channel One (television), Star Broadcasting (radio), andFamily Education Network (Internet/World Wide Web).

Themajority of citations in the category of electronic marketing are related toChannel One, which is now in its ninth year. Star Broadcasting was launched in1993. Family Education Network was established in 1996. The combined citationsfrom all of the databases in this category increased about 40 percent from 183in 1996 to 256 in 1997. However, the four-year period from 1990-1993 containedconsiderably more citations (1,217) than the four-year period from 1994-1997(849). This probably reflects the controversy that attended the creation ofChannel One, the well-publicized financial problems of its creator, ChrisWhittle, and the circumstances leading up to its sale in 1994. The data in thiscategory must, therefore, be interpreted with particular caution for the yearsprior to 1995. (See Graph 6 on following page.)

WhittleCommunications launched Channel One in 1990. The program consists of tenminutes of current events programming and two minutes of commercials. Channel Onewas purchased by K-III (now Primedia) in 1994. It is currently broadcast inapproximately 12,000 middle and high schools nationwide. Schools receive theprogram without charge on equipment provided by the company. The hardwareconsists of a satellite dish, a control panel containing video tape recordersfor recording each day’s program from a satellite feed, television monitors foreach classroom, and the requisite wiring. Channel One is supported by itsadvertising revenue. A thirty-second spot on the broadcast currently sells forabout $200,000. 

Thecontent of Channel One has been controversial since it was launched. On the onehand it has, according to the company, received over 100 news and programmingawards including the George Foster Peabody Award. On the other hand criticshave attacked Channel


 

One because schools that sign up have toguarantee that about 90 percent of their students are watching the programapproximately 90 percent of the time. This has led to charges that students arebeing forced to view advertising messages, many of which may contradict theschools’ curriculum and parental values. Further, researchers have, among otherthings, found little value in the program’s content, suggested that it waspromoting materialistic values, and dismissed it as a uniformly commercialexercise. Channel One’s web site has also come under similar criticism as hasits practice of encouraging school personnel to engage in activities such asdistributing coupons for Channel One sponsors.

Ina 1998 study, “The Hidden Costs of Channel One,” Sawicky and Molnar analyzedthe value of Channel One’s equipment and programming in relation to the cost ofthe instructional time the program occupied. They concluded that Channel Onecost participating schools more money in instructional time than the value theyreceived from the use of Channel One’s equipment and its programming.[83]

In1993, Star Broadcasting began piping music into school corridors, cafeterias,and student lounges, before and after school hours and during lunch. Starbroadcasts contain 8 to 10 minutes of commercials per hour. In addition,schools can add two minutes of commercials sold to local advertisers. As is thecase for Channel One, the company provides participating schools with theequipment necessary to receive its service. In return for allowing Starprogramming to be broadcast, the schools receive up to 60 percent (about$20,000) of the national advertising revenue generated by their participationand, according to the company, up to $2,000 more by having their students sellads to local businesses. Also, like Channel One, commercials are primarily forsoft drinks, fast food, and clothes.[84]The company claims it will not advertise personal hygiene products or moviesrated R or X.[85]


TheFamily Education Network appears to support itself by selling corporatesponsors advertising space on school web pages and by providing demographicinformation about students at participating schools and their families to thosesponsors. Its corporate parent, Family Education, Inc., offers educationresources for schools, students, and parents.[86]In 1996 it announced the formation of the Family Education Network at ahigh-profile press conference attended by the Secretary of Education. TheNetwork helps participating schools set up web sites with money from corporatesponsors, who are, in turn, allowed to advertise on the schools’ web pages.[87]It has drawn organizational partners such as the National PTA, Communities inSchools, American Association of School Administrators, and National SchoolBoards Association.[88]

FamilyEducation Network is currently in about 300 schools.[89]Its sponsors include AT&T Learning Network, Century 21, Addison WesleyLongman, Inc., MediaOne, US West, and Fleet Bank. According to AmericanBanker, Fleet Bank, for example, plans to post a video linked to schools’web sites that will “reinforce the bank’s brand and give it a foot in the doorfor selling loans, on-line banking services, and demand-deposit accounts.”  Blaise Heltai, senior vice president ofFleet’s on-line financial services, explained why the company was interested inbeing part of school-based web sites, “Children are one of the key events thattrigger financial and investment decisions.”[90]


In1998 America Online (AOL) invested $14 million in Family Education Networkwhich gave it a 20 percent share in the Family Education Company. AOL also hasthe right to acquire additional equity up to 33 percent of Family EducationNetwork. Family Education thus gets access to AOL’s 12 million members and AOLgets an opportunity to sign up new members who are attracted to the FamilyEducation Network service.[91]According to Nancy Hoit, an advisor to Vice President Gore on family andeducation policy: “This Family Education Network speaks directly to the needfor parents to be informed about curriculum. A parent, torn between work andfamily, can be at a desk at work and use a program to tap into a child’steacher.”[92]  It also speaks directly to marketer’s desireto link schools to advertising in cyberspace.

Privatization

A market potentially worth hundreds of billions ofdollars has, in the nineties, made the “education industry” something of afavorite among Wall Street investment advisors. The “education industry” isdiverse and includes firms that provide schools with supplies, perform servicesfor schools, and own or operate pre-schools and post secondary schools.  For investors, the desired model for theeducation industry is health care. To them, education maintenance organizations(EMO’s) are the vision of the future. As Kian Ghazi, an analyst for LehmanBrothers, a Wall Street Investment firm, told The American School BoardJournal in 1997, “The concept of making a buck off the dying and sick wasoutlandish 20 years ago. Making money off kids — that’s the same kind of thing.So change is possible.”[93]

 


In this report, only the segment of the educationindustry that attempts to run K-12 schools for a profit are considered in theprivatization category. The privatization category is somewhat different thanthe other commercializing categories in this report. The activities analyzed inthe other categories represent various ways of using access to schools tomarket goods, services, or a point of view. Privatization, as defined here, isthe attempt to run public schools themselves for a profit. In conducting thedatabase searches, four firms were used to represent the industry: TesseracT (and its former name, EducationAlternatives, Inc.), the Edison Project, Beacon Education Management (and its former name, AlternativePublic Schools), and Advantage Schools, Inc.

Overall,the number of citations (4,093) for the period 1994-1997 are approximately 252percent greater than the number (1,163) for the period 1990-1993. Within theperiod 1994-1997 the number of citations have trended downward since 1994. Asis the case in many of the categories studied, the education press has,compared to the other three presses analyzed, shown relatively little interestin privatization, a surprising result given the general interest in the topicsuggested by the number of citations overall (5,256). (See Graph 7, next page.)

 

TesseracT (Minneapolis), founded by John Golle in1986 as Educational Alternatives, Inc. (EAI), signed its first contract to runa public school (in Dade County, Fla.) in 1990. In 1991 the company wentpublic. Between 1991 and 1996 the company ran schools in Salt Lake City, Utah;Dade County, Fla.; Baltimore, Md.; and Hartford, Conn. By February of 1996,however, plagued by controversies over its operating costs and the educationalresults it produced, the company’s sole contract was to help the WappingersCentral School District in New York develop a district budget.[94]Educational Alternatives, Inc., subsequently changed its name to TesseracT. Thecompany has been granted the right to open 12 charter schools in Arizona and 2charter schools in Texas and it is pursuing the right to open charter schoolsin other states. It is currently running only one charter school in Arizona.Tesseract plans to open 2 additional charter schools in Arizona and 2 in Texasin September of 1998. The company also runs three private schools in the K-12sector.[95]


TheEdison Project (New York) was announced in 1991 by Chris Whittle, the developerof Channel One. The original corporate plan was to raise between $2.5 - $3billion to open 200 privately operated schools serving 150,000 students by1996. Unable to raise sufficient funds, and faced with a financial crisis thatforced him to sell Channel One in 1994, Chris Whittle redefined the EdisonProject as a firm that would run public schools.[96]The company currently runs 25 schools in 13 school districts, located in 8states. Almost half of the Edison schools (12) operate within the framework ofcharter school legislation.[97]

SinceSeptember 1997, Beacon Education Management (Nashville) has been the new namefor Alternative Public Schools. Founded in 1993, Alternative Public Schools’first attempt to run a public school was its controversial 1994 agreement totake over Turner Elementary School in Wilkinsburg, Pa.[98]Following passage of the Pennsylvania charter school law in 1997, Beacon agreedto allow Wilkinsburg to void its contract to run Turner Elementary School atthe end of the 1997-98 school year.[99] It currently runs three middle schoolsand six elementary schools in three states (Massachusetts, Michigan, and NorthCarolina). The firm also provides various other services to eight additionalschools in five states. Of the nine schools Beacon runs, five Michigan schoolsare under the management of JCR & Associates, an affiliated company.[100]


AdvantageSchools (Boston) was founded in 1996. It concentrates on running charterschools and, according to its mission statement, it focuses on urban schools.Advantage’s curricular program is based on the Direct Instruction method. It currentlyruns 10 for-profit schools located in Rocky Mount, N.C.; Charlotte, N.C.;Phoenix, Ariz.; Kalamazoo, Mich.; Chicago, Ill.; Washington, D.C.; Jersey City,N.J.; Worcester, Mass.; Malden, Mass.; and San Antonio, Texas.[101]

Evidenceabout the educational benefits, public cost, and financial performance offor-profit firms running public schools is mixed and very controversial.However, given the current level of interest, it is likely that privatizationwill continue to represent one of the major commercializing activities ineducation for the foreseeable future. It is, therefore, important to continueto monitor this activity.

Conclusion

Theevidence presented in this report suggests that the 1990’s have become thedecade of sponsored schools and commercialized classrooms. Overall, the numberof citations reporting commercial activity in schools has increased 154% overthe past eight years. Table 2 displays the total number of citations found forthe combined commercializing categories by year from 1990-1997.

Whileoverall there has been a large increase in the number of citations documentingcommercial activities in the schools, there is considerable variance in thechange in citations among the seven categories of commercialism studied. Infact, three (Incentive Programs, Appropriation of Space, and ElectronicMarketing) of the seven categories posted decreases in the number of citationsfound when 1990 and 1997 are compared. In at least one case (that of ElectronicMarketing), however, this is the result of factors unique to that category andnot an indication that the activity is diminishing.

Table3 shows the ranking of each category of commercializing activity in 1990 anddisplays the number of citations found in each category. Table 4 shows theranking of each category in 1997 and displays the number of citations found.Table 5 ranks commercializing categories by percentage of change when number ofcitations in 1990 and in 1997 are compared.

Tables6, 7, and 8 display the percentage change in total citations by categorybetween the two periods 1990-1993 and 1994-1997; total citations by category1990-1993; and total citations by category 1994-1997, respectively. This is away of capturing longer-term trends. As the tables reveal, the extent to whicha particular category of commercialism appears to increase or decrease isrelated to the unit of time used to measure the changes. The information inTables 3-7 must be interpreted cautiously. Regardless, it is clear that overallthe number of citations related to schoolhouse commercialism is up sharply forthe period 1990-1997.

Withinindividual categories, the largest percentage increase in citations when 1990and 1997 are compared was in the Privatization category (1285%). This is nodoubt because of the large number of citations between 1993-1995 thatdocumented problems rather than reported on the spread of for-profit schools.Graph 8 (on following page) displays a downward trend in Privatizationcitations since 1994, which lends weight to this assessment.  It is likely, therefore, that the ExclusiveAgreements category, which shows a significant increase in citations for 1997when compared to 1990 (495%), is the commercializing activity that actuallygrew the most sharply between 1990-1997. (See Table 5.)

Thenumber of citations in the Sponsorship of Programs and Activities category grew199% and it is a huge category. In 1997 it had more than twice as manycitations as Privatization, and more than twelve times as many citations asExclusive Agreements. According to these data, Sponsorship of Programs andActivities was the largest school commercialism category throughout thenineties, and it continues to grow. These numbers suggest that activities suchas Greenbrier High School’s “Coke in Education Day” are going to become anincreasingly common feature of the American public school landscape.

Appropriationof Space is a small category of commercial activity in the schools. The numberof citations in this category fell 33 percent comparing 1990 and 1997 figures.That represents a numerical decrease from 43 citations to 29. This small numbersuggests that appropriation of space is not a major category of commercializingactivity.

SponsoredEducational Materials was the seventh-ranked category in 1990 (8 citations) andthe sixth-ranked category in 1997 (33 citations). This represents an increaseof 313%.

IncentivePrograms, Appropriation of Space, and Electronic Marketing all showed declinesin the number of citations when 1990 and 1997 figures are compared. The declinefor Incentive Programs (16%) probably represents a real decline in theprevalence of this sort of commercializing activity. The decrease in the numberof Electronic Marketing citations, however, probably is not an accuratereflection of the actual pervasiveness of this sort of commercialism. This isbecause two of the three firms included in the database searches were not inexistence throughout the eight-year period studied. Star Broadcasting waslaunched in 1993 and the Family Education Network was launched in 1996. Thelarge number of citations in the early nineties is, therefore, entirely afunction of the notoriety of Channel One and to some extent the financial upsand downs of its founder Chris Whittle. Graph 8 shows that the number of citationsin 1997 in Electronic Marketing has increased over 1996. In subsequent years itwill be possible to determine whether or not this is the start of an upwardtrend.

Graph8 summarizes the number of citations contained in all databases searched byyear and plots an eight-year trend line for each category of commercializingactivity. Four of the seven commercializing categories, Privatization,Appropriation of Space, Sponsored Educational Materials, and IncentivePrograms, show declines in the number of citations between 1996-1997. Thesedeclines suggest that Electronic Marketing, Exclusive Agreements, andSponsorship of Programs and Activities may be the most importantcommercializing trends in the future, although it is too early to tell.

ThePrivatization category has been trending downward since 1994. However, this mayhave to do with unique circumstances associated with the firms studied. It istoo early to predict whether or to what extent privatization, which is now anestablished commercializing activity, will grow in subsequent years.

ReviewingGraphs 1-7, a few things stand out. The popular press had, with one exception,the largest number of citations in each category of commercial activity. Thiswas expected, because the popular press database is, by far, the largestdatabase searched. Also, as noted earlier, one Associated Press or New YorkTimes article could be picked up by many newspapers, and each time thestory appeared it was counted as a separate article.  Only the Appropriation of Space categoryreveals a different pattern. In this category, there are more citations in theadvertising/marketing press (Graph 4).


Whatis perhaps most surprising in reviewing Graphs 1-7 is not the relative attentiongiven to the various sorts of commercial activities in schools and classroomsby the business and advertising/marketing press. What is surprising is theapparent indifference of the education press. At a time when commercialism inschools and classrooms appears to be increasing dramatically, it is more than alittle puzzling that educators do not seem to have much to say about it. Theseeming failure of the education community to describe, attempt to understand,and assess the impact of commercial activities on the character and quality ofschools and their programs is hard to explain and warrants furtherinvestigation.


APPENDIX

Sources, Search Strategies, SearchTerms, and Data Tables

 

 

SOURCES

 

Popular Press Citations: To compile this data, the Lexis-Nexis “RegNews”Library “AllNews” file was used. According to the Lexis-Nexis Directory ofOnline Services, the “RegNews” Library is a “combination of news sourcesgrouped together by geographical area. It contains more than 125 full-text USregional news sources. … The UPI State and Regional wire service is alsoincluded.” (p. 226)

 

Education Press Citations: To compile this data, the H.W. Wilson EducationIndex was used. Education Index, according to the vendor description on thecompany’s web site, “indexes 349 English-language periodicals, yearbooks, andselected monographic series. It covers all levels of education. Featurearticles are indexed, as are important editorials and letters to the editor,interviews, reviews of educational films, software reviews, critiques oftheses, charts and graphs without text, and book reviews.” (www.hwwilson.com/educat.html)

 

TheEducational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) for education presscitations was also searched. However, the ERIC results are not included in thisreport because there was considerable overlap with the citations found in theEducation Index and ERIC often had fewer relevant citations. In addition,Education Index’s use of standard Library of Congress Subject Headings allowsfor subject searches as well as key word searches, while ERIC allows only keyword searches.

 

Business Press Citations: To obtain the business press citations, theLexis-Nexis Business and Finance Library AllNews file was used. The Businessand Finance Library contains a wide variety of sources that provide businessand finance news including business journals and investments and mergeracquisition news sources. (Lexis-Nexis Directory of Online Services, p.27)

 

TheH.W. Wilson Business Index was also searched. However, Lexis-Nexis featuredmore extensive coverage and therefore more relevant citations.

 

Advertising/Marketing Press Citations: The Lexis-Nexis “Market” Library, “Allnews” filewas used to compile this data. This library includes “an extensive variety ofpublications covering advertising, marketing, market research, publicrelations, sales and selling, promotions, consumer attitudes and behaviors,demographics, product announcements and reviews.” (Lexis-Nexis Directory ofOnline Services, p. 142).

 

SEARCH STRATEGIES

 

Inthe development of the search terms used in this report, a number of differentwords and phrases were tested for their value in identifying relevantcitations. The terms used to retrieve the citations described in this reportare groups of words broad enough to include the various permutations of an idea(such as in Graph 2, “exclusive sale*” or “exclusive deal*” or “exclusiveagreement*,” etc.) but narrow enough not to pull up irrelevant citations.

 

Anexample of the evolution of one set of search terms, those for SponsoredEducational Materials (Graph 5), will illustrate the process. At first, thefollowing set was used:

 

sponsoredlesson or sponsored material* or sponsored curricul* or sponsored teaching aid

 

Afterreviewing the initial citations, the list was expanded to include a few othercommon variations of the terms, such as adding an asterisk to “sponsored lesson*”(the asterisk indicating that any variation on the word ending should becounted, i.e., “lesson” or “lessons.”) and adding the phrase “sponsorededucation* material*.” It was also noted that Education Index has a subjectheading for “sponsored teaching aids,” but not “sponsored teaching aid,” so anasterisk was added to that phrase, to get “aid” and “aids,” thereby increasingthe number of relevant citations found.

 

Thenames of some of the major producers of sponsored educational materials, such asScholastic and Lifetime Learning Systems, were searched on. However, dependingon how the search was phrased, their inclusion either led to a greater numberof irrelevant citations (such as mentions of Scholastic’s other products), orto a restriction of citations to only those that featured mentions of bothsponsored educational materials and one of the companies’ names. Forthis reason it was decided not to include the company names in the searches.

 

 

 

 

 

SEARCH TERMS

 

The search terms used to compile data from the Popular, Business,and Advertising/Marketing presses are listed below. All search datesencompassed the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1997. Graphs inthis report were created based on searches conducted 22 and 23 June 1998.

 

Graph 1: ((corporate sponsor*) or (school business relationship)or (sponsor* school activit* or sponsor* school program* or sponsor* schoolevent*) or (School Properties Inc) and (primary or elementary or grammar orintermediate or 

 junior or middle or secondaryor high w/1 school*)) and date = 19xx

 

Graph2: (DD Marketing or exclusive sale* or exclusive contract* or exclusive deal*or exclusive agreement* or exclusive partner* or exclusive pour* right*) and(primary or elementary or grammar or middle or secondary or  intermediate or junior or high w/1 school*)and date = 19xx and not college or university

 

Graph 3: ((Apples for the Students) or (Pizza Hut and Book It!) or(Campbells Labels for Education) or (grocery or supermarket or food store orcash register receipt and redeem*) and (primary or elementary or grammar orjunior or  secondary or intermediate orhigh w/1 school)) and date = 19xx

 

Graph 4: CAPS(Cover Concepts or School Marketing Partners) or(advertis* in and  (primary or elementaryor grammar or junior or secondary or intermediate  w/1 school*) and date = 19xx

 

Graph 5: (sponsor* education* material* or sponsor* teaching aid*or corporate sponsor* material* or sponsor* curricul* or education kit* and(school* or classroom*)) and date =19xx

 

 

Graph 6: CAPS(Channel One) or (Star Broadcasting) or (FamilyEducation Network) and (primary or grammar or elementary or intermediate orjunior or secondary or high w/1  school*)and date = 19xx

 

Graph 7: CAPS(Alternative Public Schools, Inc or Beacon EducationManagement or Tesseract or Education Alternatives Inc or Edison  Project or Advantage Schools) and date = 199x

 

 

To search H.W. Wilson Education Index, the following terms were used.The terms vary somewhat from those used in the other three presses becauseEducation Index doesn’t allow search phrases as long as those permitted in theLexis-Nexis databases, and it also doesn’t allow the complex nesting of termsthat can be used in Lexis-Nexis.

 

Graph 1: search 1: School Properties Inc or school-businessrelationship or (sponsored activit* or program* or event*) and school*

search 2: school-business relationship

search 3: business and education and (sponsored activit* orprogram* or event*) and (primary or grammar or elementary or secondary or highor junior or intermediate)

search 4: (business or corporate sponsor*) and (activit* orprogram* or event*) and (primary or grammar or elementary or secondary or highor junior or intermediate)

search 5: school-business partnership

 

Graph 2: search 1: exclusive sale* or exclusive contract* orexclusive right* or exclusive agreement* or exclusive partner* or pour* right*

search 2: Coke or Pepsi or Dr Pepper or Coca-Cola or soda or softdrink

search 3: (sneaker* or Adidas or Reebok or Nike or athletic wearor athletic apparel or sports wear or sports apparel) and school*

 

Graph 3: search 1: Apples for the Students or (Pizza Hut and BookIt!) or Campbell* Labels for Education

search 2: grocery or supermarket or food store or cash registerand receipt and redeem*

search 3: (grocery or supermarket or food store or cash registerreceipt and redeem*)

 

Graph 4: search 1: Cover Concepts or School Marketing Partners oradvertis* and school* and not channel one

search 2: propaganda in the schools

 

Graph 5: search 1: sponsored education* material*

search 2: sponsored lesson*

search 3: corporate sponsored material*

search 4: sponsored curricul*

search 5: sponsored teaching aid*

 

Graph 6: (Channel One or Star Broadcasting or Family EducationNetwork) and (primary or elementary or grammar or intermediate or secondary orjunior or high) and school*

 

Graph 7: search 1: Tesseract and school*

search 2: (Alternative Public Schools Inc or Beacon Education Managementor Edison Project or Advantage Schools) and school*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


TABLES 1-8

 

 

TABLE 1: Number of Citations About Exclusive PouringRights Agreements, by Press and by Year

 

Press

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Popular

2

2

1

4

5

9

17

51

Business

3

3

0

1

4

4

2

2

Ad/Marketing

1

5

3

2

2

7

5

3

Education

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

6

10

4

7

11

20

24

56

 

 

 

TABLE 1.1: Number of Citations About Exclusive SportsApparel Agreements, by Press and by Year

 

Press

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Popular

1

0

2

1

4

10

0

7

Business

0

1

0

1

0

7

1

2

Ad/Marketing

1

1

2

3

2

6

5

2

Education

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

2

2

4

5

6

23

6

11

 

 

 

TABLE 2: Combined Total Citations, All Types ofCommercializing

Activity, All Presses, by Year

 

Year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Total

1001

921

1575

1591

2706

2624

2672

2542

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3: Total Citations and Rank in 1990, by Type of

Commercializing Activity 

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Total Number of Citations 1990

Rank

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

461

1

Electronic Marketing

327

2

Incentive Programs

96

3

Privatization

47

4

Appropriation of Space

43

5

Exclusive Agreements

19

6

Sponsored Educational Materials

8

7

 

 

 

TABLE 4: Total Citations and Rank in 1997, by Type of

Commercializing Activity

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Total Number of Citations 1997

Rank

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

1379

1

Privatization

651

2

Electronic Marketing

256

3

Exclusive Agreements

113

4

Incentive Programs

81

5

Sponsored Educational Materials

33

6

Appropriation of Space

29

7

 

 

 

 

 

 


TABLE 5: Percentage Change Between from 1990 to 1997and

Rank, by Type of Commercializing Activity

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Percentage Change (+/-) 1990-1997

Rank in Percentage Increase

Privatization

+1285%

1

Exclusive Agreements

+495%

2

Sponsored Educational Materials

+313%

3

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

+199%

4

Incentive Programs

-16%

5

Electronic Marketing

-22%

6

Appropriation of Space

-33%

7

 

 

 

TABLE 6: Percentage Change Between from 1990-1993 and

1994-1997 and Rank, by Type of CommercializingActivity

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Percentage Change (+/-) 1990-1993 to 1994-1997

Rank in Percentage Increase

Privatization

+252%

1

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

+132%

2

Exclusive Agreements

+129%

3

Sponsored Educational Materials

+58%

4

Incentive Programs

+28%

5

Appropriation of Space

+18%

6

Electronic Marketing

-30%

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7: Total Citations in the Four-Year Period1990-1993

and Rank, by Type of Commercializing Activity

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Total Citations,

1990-1993

Rank

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

2050

1

Electronic Marketing

1217

2

Privatization

1163

3

Incentive Programs

257

4

Exclusive Agreements

126

5

Appropriation of Space

103

6

Sponsored Educational Materials

72

7

 

 

 

TABLE 8: Total Citations in the Four-Year Period1994-1997

and Rank, by Type of Commercializing Activity

 

Type of Commercializing Activity

Total Citations, 1994-1997

Rank

Sponsorship of Programs and Activities

4748

1

Privatization

4093

2

Electronic Marketing

849

3

Incentive Programs

329

4

Exclusive Agreements

289

5

Appropriation of Space

122

6

Sponsored Educational Materials

114

7

 


 

 

 

NOTES



* This report was written with the research assistance of ElizabethBuchanan, who spent countless hours conducting database searches and creatinggraphs, and Jennifer Morales, who tracked down information on companies andgroups engaged in schoolhouse commercializing activities.

 

“SponsoredSchools and Commercialized Classrooms” is available on the CACE web pageat:http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CACE/                              



[1] Thom Marshall, “Gloria Shoulda Had a Coke and aSmile,” Houston Chronicle, 29 March 1998, sec. A, p. 37, Two StarEdition.

[2] Guy Friddell, “Student’s Act of Cola Defiance WasRefreshing,” (Norfolk, Va.) Virginian-Pilot, 4 April 1998, sec. B, p. 1,Final Edition.

[3] Kara K. Choquette, “Pepsi Shirt ‘Joke’ Lands Studentin Hot Water,” USA Today, 26 March 1998, Money sec., p. 1B.

[4] Frank Swoboda (Washington Post Service), “For PepsiFolk, a Joke on Coke,” (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) International HeraldTribune, 27 March 1998, News sec., p. 1.

[5] Jingle Davis, “No Coke, Pepsi: Rebel Without a Pause,”Atlanta Constitution, 26 March 1998, News sec., p. 1A, ConstitutionEdition.

[6] Editorial, “So What’s Next, Nike Elementary?” (Baton Rouge, La.) Advocate,29 March 1998, News sec., p. 16B.

[7] Guy Friddell, “Student’s Act of Cola Defiance WasRefreshing,” (Norfolk, Va.) Virginian-Pilot, 4 April 1998, sec. B, p. 1,Final Edition.

[8] Editorial, “Pepsi Shirt Wasn’t a Huge Crime,” OmahaWorld-Herald, 29 March 1998, p. 20A.

[9] Barry Saunders, “OK, Class ­— Line Up, Dress Right,and Salute the Image,” (Raleigh, N.C.) News and Observer, 28 March 1998,p. A19, Final Edition.

[10] Carl Hiassen (Miami Herald), “Be True to YourSchool ... and Its Cola,” Charleston (S.C.) Gazette, 31 March 1998, p.4A.

[11] Chuck Ross and Louise Kramer, “Coke Card PromotionSet for ‘98,” Advertising Age, 17 November 1997, 1, 84.

[12] Bud Kennedy, “School Campuses No Place to FightNation’s Cola Wars,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 31 March 1998, Metrosec., p. 1.

[13] Simon Beck, “Cola Joke Hard to Swallow,” SouthChina Morning Post, 29 March 1998, America sec., p. 11.

[14] Joan Beck, “Selling Our Nation’s Schools to MadisonAvenue,” Chicago Tribune, 29 March 1998, Commentary sec., p. 19,Chicagoland Final Edition.

[15] David Usborne, “Math and Fizzics for the Pupils ofDr Pepper,” (London) Independent, 29 March 1998, News sec., p. 21.

[16] Peter Brewington, “Budgetary Shortfalls Have SchoolsCourting Corporations, Parents,” USA Today, 2 November 1990, Sportssec., p. 12C.

[17] Mark Herrmann, “Get Ready for Sponsored Sports,” Newsday,15 March 1988, Sports sec., p. 106, Nassau and Suffolk Edition.

[18] Joel Millman, “High School Hype,” Forbes, 4February 1991, 117.

[19] Bill Paterson, “Corporate Funding Sometimes Poor Fitfor High Schools,” Sacramento Bee, 8 April 1993, Neighbors sec., p. N10.

[20] Damien Cristodero, “Schools Find Aid in Ads,Sponsorships,” St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, 20 January 1998, Sportssec., p. 1C.

[21] Steve Mills, “Marketing Idea: Be True to Your School— with VISA,” Chicago Tribune, 11 August 1994, News sec., p. 1, NorthSports Final Edition.

[22] Roy Appleton, “Schools Pursue Corporate Deals,” DallasMorning News, 24 December 1995, News sec., p. 1A, Home Final Edition.

[23] “US West Strikes Deal with Denver Schools,” YouthMarkets Alert, 7 December 1997.

[24] Paul King, “On-Sight Insight: Corporate SponsorshipsCan Serve a Valuable Purpose,” Nation’s Restaurant News, 14 April 1997,p. 16.

[25] “When Chips Are Down, Nabisco Offers Lesson ThatKids Eat Up,” Selling to Kids, 15 October 1997.

[26] Kim Cleland, “AT&T Sponsors $500,000 Deal forSchool Sites,” Advertising Age, 23 June 1997, 18.

[27] Kate Fitzgerald, “Mars’ Twix Gives Schoolkids a Voteon How to Conclude Ad,” Advertising Age, 29 September 1997, 48.

[28] James U. McNeal, “Tapping the Three Kids’ Markets,” AmericanDemographics, April 1998, 37-41.

[29] Shelly Reese, “Kidmoney: Children As Big Business,” Technos,Winter 1996, 19-22.

[30] James U. McNeal, “Tapping the Three Kids’ Markets,” AmericanDemographics, April 1998, 37-41.

[31] Constance L. Hays, “First Lessons in the Power ofMoney,” New York Times, 12 April 1998, sec. 3, p. 1, Sunday Late EditionFinal.

[32] Deborah Stead (New York Times News Service),“Cash-poor Schools Open Doors to Commercialism,” (Memphis) Commercial Appeal,5 January 1997, News sec., p. 6A, Final Edition.

[33] James U. McNeal, “Tapping the Three Kids’ Markets,” AmericanDemographics, April 1998, 37-41.

[34] Constance L. Hays, “Be True to Your Cola. Rah! Rah!”New York Times, 10 March 1998, sec. C, pp. 1, 4.

[35] Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, “SchoolContracts with Coke and Pepsi and Others,” Oakland, Calif., 22 April 1998.

[36] Damien Cristodero, “Schools Find Aid in Ads,Sponsorships,” St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, 20 January 1998, Sportssec., p. 1C, South Pinellas Edition.

[37] Brian McTaggart, “Selling Our Schools: Districts Cashingin on Deals with Soft Drink Firms,” Houston Chronicle, 10 August 1997,sec. A, p. 1, Two Star Edition.

[38] Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, “SchoolContracts with Coke and Pepsi and Others,” Oakland, Calif., 22 April 1998.

[39] Bill Paterson, “Corporate Funding Sometimes Poor Fitfor High Schools,” Sacramento Bee, 8 April 1993, Neighbors sec., p. N10.

[40] Janet Bingham, “Corporate Deals Boost School Aims inJeffco,” Denver Post, 20 August 1997, Denver sec., p. B1, SecondEdition.

[41] Sean Callebs, “Get ‘em While They’re Young,” CNNfn —the Financial Network (http://cnnfn.com/hotstories/bizbuzz), 11 July 1996.

[42] Brian McTaggart, “Selling Our Schools: DistrictsCashing in on Deals with Soft Drink Firms,” Houston Chronicle, 10 August1997, sec. A, p. 1, Two Star Edition.

[43] Annetta Miller, et al., “Just Doing It,” Newsweek,2 October 1995, 64-65.

[44] Matthew Klein, “School Daze,” Marketing Tools,September 1997, 16.

[45] Daniel Bice, “MPS Backs Off Pepsi Deal; ExclusiveRights Offer Raised Legal Questions,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 22March 1998, sec. B, p. 1.

[46] Betsy Thatcher, “No Deposit, Big Returns,” MilwaukeeJournal Sentinel, 18 August 1997, Waukesha sec., p. 1, Metro Edition.

[47] Roy Appleton, “Schools Pursue Corporate Deals,” DallasMorning News, 24 December 1995, News sec., p. 1A, Home Final Edition.

[48] Anthony Todd Carlisle, “Be True to Your School(Sponsor),” Pittsburgh Business Times, 7 July 1997.

[49] James U. McNeal, “Tapping the Three Kids’ Markets,” AmericanDemographics, April 1998, 37-41.

[50] “Global Study a Roadmap for Marketers,” Sellingto Kids, 2 April 1997.

[51] Shelly Reese, “Kidmoney: Children As Big Business,” Technos,Winter 1996, 19-22.

[52] Associated Press, “Schools Grant Coke ExclusiveRights,” Marketing News, 13 October 1997, Marketing Perspective sec., p.9.

[53] Editorial, “Advertisers Must Treat Schools with KidGloves,” Dallas Business Journal, 11-17 July 1997, p. 26.

[54] Associated Press, “Schools Grant Coke ExclusiveRights,” Marketing News, 13 October 1997, Marketing Perspective sec., p.9.

[55] Campbell’s Soup Co. corporate web site(www.campbellsoup.com), “Labels for Education Frequently Asked Questions,”cited on 15 May 1998.

[56] Constance L. Hays, “First Lessons in the Power ofMoney,” New York Times, 12 April 1998, sec. 3, p. 1.

[57] “Start-Up Business Unites with Schools,” BusinessJournal Serving San Jose and Silicon Valley, 12 February 1996, p. 9.

[58] Maria E. Odum, “Middlemen Ring Up Profits in FoodChain’s School Computer Programs,” Washington Post, 19 April 1993, sec.B, p. 1.

[59]  “Lake BluffEarns Computers from Kohl’s,” Shorewood (Wis.) School District QuarterlyBulletin, Summer 1992, p. 3.

[60] Jacqueline M. Graves, “The New Profit Centers:Schools,” Fortune, 28 November 1994, 15.

[61] Frellie Campus, “Schools Score with Biz Help,” PacificBusiness News, 28 October 1996, 3.

[62] Denise Edgington, “Buying in to the Kids’ Market,” (DesMoines, Iowa) Business Record, 11 March 1996.

[63] Kate Zernike, “Let’s Make a Deal: Businesses SeekClassroom Access,” Boston Globe, 2 February 1997, Metro sec., p. A1,Sunday City Edition.

[64] Dana Hawkins, “Johnny Can Read for Cash andFreebies,” US News & World Report, 30 October 1995, 72-73.

[65] Kate Zernike, “Let’s Make a Deal: Businesses SeekClassroom Access,” Boston Globe, 2 February 1997, Metro sec., p. A1,Sunday City Edition.

[66] Jessica L. Sandham, “From Walls to Roofs, SchoolsSell Ad Space,” Education Week, 4 June 1997, pp. 1, 22.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Damian Cristodero, “Schools Find Aid in Ads,Sponsorships,” St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, 20 January 1998, Sportssec., p. 1C, South Pinellas Edition.

[69] Jessica L. Sandham, “From Walls to Roofs, SchoolsSell Ad Space,” Education Week, 4 June 1997, pp. 1, 22.

[70] Phaedra Hise, “Delivering the Kids,” Inc.,July 1995, 76.

[71] Matthew Klein, “School Daze,” Marketing Tools,September 1997, 16.

[72] Phaedra Hise, “Delivering the Kids,” Inc.,July 1995, 76.

[73] Steve Mills, “Ad Clutter Now Covers Textbooks,” ChicagoTribune, 26 March 1997, News sec., p. 1, Lake Sports Final Edition.

[74] “School Lunch Special: Tuna Melt, with a Side ofCoupons,” Consumer Reports, December 1997, 7.

[75] ScreenAd Digital Billboards corporate web site (www.screenad.com), “Advertisers,” cited on 1 June 1998.

[76] Matthew Klein, “School Daze,” Marketing Tools,September 1997, 16.

[77] Edwin C. Broome, “Report of the Committee onPropaganda in the Schools” (presented at a meeting of the National EducationAssociation, Atlanta, Ga., July 1929).

[78] Consumers Union, Captive Kids: CommercialPressures on Kids at School (Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union EducationServices, 1995), 12-16.

[79] Deborah Stead (New York Times News Service),“Cash-poor Schools Open Doors to Commercialism,” (Memphis) Commercial Appeal,5 January 1997, News sec., p. 6A, Final Edition.

[80]SI for Kids Readies Packs of Samples forSchoolkids,” Advertising Age, 7 April 1997, 53.

[81] Paradise Foods, Inc., “40,000 Fifth Graders Acrossthe Country Get a Free Lesson in the History of Sharing,” company pressrelease, 23 October 1997.

[82] Nike curriculum, produced by Scholastic, Inc., March1997.

[83] Max B. Sawicky and Alex Molnar, “The Hidden Costs ofChannel One: Estimates for the 50 States” (Milwaukee: Center for Analysis ofCommercialism in Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1998).

[84] “Broadcaster Offers US Schools Pay to Play,” SanJose (Calif.) Mercury News, 5 September 1993, Front sec., p. A8, FinalChaser.

[85] Vicki Ferstel, “School Board Can’t Deal with RadioFirm for Programming,” (Baton Rouge, La.) Advocate, 26 February 1994,News sec., p. 3B, Metro Edition.

[86] Family Education Network corporate web site(www.familyeducation.com/vcenter), “About Us,” cited on 1 May 1998 and “FAQsabout Membership for Parents,” cited on 5 May 1998.

[87] Andrew Nelson, “Firm Offers Schools Internet Aid,” (Quincy,Mass.) Patriot Ledger, 10 October 1996, News sec., p. 21, South Edition.

[88] Family Education Network corporate web site(www.familyeducation.com/vcenter), “Associations Overview,” cited on 1 May 1998.

[89] Hiawatha Bray, “AOL in $14m Pact with FamilyEducation,” Boston Globe, 30 April 1998, Economy sec., p. E5, CityEdition.

[90] Drew Clark, “Fleet Sponsoring Web Site to Tap intoYoung Parents,” American Banker, 9 October 1997, 21.

[91] Hiawatha Bray, “AOL in $14m Pact with FamilyEducation,” Boston Globe, 30 April 1998. Economy sec., p. E5, CityEdition.

[92] Andrew Nelson, “Firm Offers Schools Internet Aid,” (Quincy,Mass.) Patriot Ledger, 10 October 1996, News sec., p. 21, South Edition.

[93] Kevin Bushweller, “Education Ltd.,” AmericanSchool Board Journal, March 1997, 19-21.

[94] Alex Molnar, Giving Kids the Business(Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996), 96-109.

[95] Phil Geiger, President, TesseracT Group, Inc.,telephone conversation with Jennifer Morales, CACE, 5 May 1998.

[96] Alex Molnar, Giving Kids the Business(Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996), 86-92.

[97] Edison Project corporate web site(www.edisonproject.com), “What Is the Edison Project?” and “Where Can I FindEdison Schools?” cited on 19 May 1998.

[98] Stephen Baker, “Reading, Writing, and Rancor,” BusinessWeek, 18 September 1995, 54.

[99] John Eason, Senior Vice President for Marketing,Beacon Education Management, telephone conversation with Jennifer Morales,CACE, 5 May 1998.

[100] Beacon Education Management, “Schools and Services,”corporate brochure, 5 March 1998.

[101] Advantage Schools corporate web site(www.advantage-schools.com), “Mission,” cited 11 March 1998; “AdvantageSchools’ Founders,” cited 11 March 1998; and “Advantage Schools, Inc.,” citedon 5 May 1998.