Integrating the Schoolhouse and theMarketplace

 

APreliminary Assessment of the Emerging Role of Electronic Technology

 

By

Alex Molnar

 

Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education(CACE)

School Of Education

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

P.O. Box 413

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

 

Prepared for Presentation at the 1999 Annual Meetingof the

American Educational Research Association, Montreal,Canada, April 19-23, 1999

 

April 1999 

 

 

 

Introduction

In his April 8, 1999, WashingtonPost column, George Will criticized a proposal to put advertising on thesleeves of baseball player’s uniforms. Will reasoned that such advertisingcrossed a line between advertising strategically placed so that large numbersof people are likely to see it and "advertising so unavoidable it isassaultive." He concluded that ‘… within the cheerful swirl of commerce ata ballpark, there is a baseball game – dignified competition in a zone of itsown, within the white lines."1 If "advertising sounavoidable it is assaultive" is unacceptable in baseball it is even moreoffensive in a school setting.

A child’s presence in school,unlike attendance at a baseball game, is coerced. Over the past two decadesadvertisers have increasingly exploited this fact. Today, in schools all overAmerica students are routinely required to view advertising in order tocomplete class assignments or are denied access to learning technologies unlessthey provide marketers information about themselves and their families. Thesepractices seem certain to increase as the current emphasis on computertechnology and utilization of the world wide web encourages the formation ofmore "public-private partnerships" to provide computers, software,and web access. Today, the price of a computer lab, or a school web site, isvery often the willingness to provide advertisers access to students and toinformation about students and their families. The current focus on electronictechnologies as a key element in school reform and improvement thus makesissues such as how to define a school’s "zone of its own" and wherethe "white lines" that define it should be drawn more important thanever.

The focus of this paper is how, byreinforcing and exploiting the emphasis on electronic technologies in schoolreform, marketers are more fully integrating school children into America’sadvertising and marketing system. ZapMe! Corporation, which provides computerlabs and internet access to K-12 schools in return for advertising orpromotional access to students and their families, is used to illustrate howtechnology and commercialism are being linked in American school reform.

 

Linking Technology andMarketing: ZapMe! Corporation

ZapMe! Corporation, founded in1996, defines its business model as "Bringing Together TechnologyProviders, Sponsors, and Schools."2 The company describesitself as "a satellite delivery-based computer network system providingsafe, high-speed, Internet access and aggregated educational content to K-12schools across the United States."3 Its "Netspace"program for K-12 schools was launched during the 1998-99 school year. As ofApril 1999 ZapMe! claimed to be fully operational in 90 schools and to have signedup 5,000 more.4

Participating schools get between5 and 15 desktop computers with 17" monitors, a network server, a laserprinter, and a satellite dish. All the equipment is installed and maintained byZapMe!. The company also provides training and technical support for teachersand students.5 According to an October 21, 1998, press release,ZapMe! hardware and software is provided by corporations such as CompaqComputer Corporation (computers), GE Americom (satellite service), MicrosoftCorporation (software), and Philips Consumer Electronics (monitors).6These corporations provide their products and services in order to"showcase" their brands. The ZapMe! promotional material explains,"Corporations WANT to support education. Corporations are looking for waysto support Education. ZapMe! Corporation has established a uniquebusiness/school partnership that is a win-win arrangement for all."7

ZapMe! computers are equipped withword processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software. No software other thanthat provided by the corporation can be installed. ZapMe! "Netspace"offers e-mail, chat rooms, and access to pre-selected web sites (approximately10,000, according to the company).8 In addition, schools may, ifthey choose, provide unrestricted Internet access using the ZapMe! system.9Corporations pay ZapMe to provide access to curriculum materials they havedeveloped. General Electric, for example, has purchased advertising space onthe ZapMe! browser and paid a fee to have web content about space that itdeveloped placed on the ZapMe! "Netspace."10

ZapMe! provides hardware,software, and content without direct cost to participating schools. Schools do,however, incur obligations beyond providing the necessary space, telephoneconnection, electrical service, and supplies such as paper for the laserprinter when they sign a contract with ZapMe!. The ZapMe! contract, forexample, requires that each computer in the ZapMe! computer lab be in use anaverage of four hours a day; that schools provide ZapMe! corporate partnerswith access to the system after hours; that schools participating in ZapMe!"take home" programs; and that school staff will provide feedback tothe company about its services and features.11 As a reward forspending time on the ZapMe! system students can earn "ZapMe! Points"good for prizes such as software.12

Policy Issues Raised ByZapMe!

 

On the surface the ZapMe! programhas a lot of appeal. It appears to foster broadly supported educational goalssuch as promoting computer literacy and providing students with access to the"information superhighway." It also purports to address the lack ofresources available to design and implement school technology programs byharnessing the good will and self-interest of corporate America. As an addedplus it seems to address the equity concerns of many school reformers. ZapMe!is available to rich and poor schools alike. Despite its surface appeal, ZapMe!poses serious challenges to policy makers.

The ZapMe! program is a for-profitventure that proposes to derive its profits from activities that link theacademic activities of schools and the marketing activities of corporations ina seamless web. This necessarily raises ethical and public policy issues. Sevenproblematic aspects of the ZapMe! program are described below.

1) Hardware suppliers (e.g.,Compaq) and software suppliers (e.g., Microsoft) provide their products for thepurpose of brand exposure and building future market share. The logic is thatstudents trained using their products are more likely to continue to use thoseproducts. Also, the more students trained in particular software applicationsthe greater the incentive for employers to purchase those applications.

Policy issue: Thehardware and software provided by ZapMe! may not be the best or mostappropriate for use in a school setting. The decision about which products touse is based on a corporate business strategy not an educational plan.

2) Corporations pay ZapMe! to puteducational programs that they have developed onto the ZapMe!"Netspace."

Policy issue: Thefinancial relationship between ZapMe! and corporations that provide educationalcontent raises the issue of bias, a well documented concern associated withcorporate sponsored educational materials.13 In addition, instead ofcurriculum options that have been developed or selected by their teachers, thematerials available to students are those created or chosen by whichevercorporation was able and willing to pay to have them posted.

3) Corporations pay to placeadvertising ("brand imaging") on the ZapMe! "Netspace"browser. The Associated Press reports that, in a demonstration of advertisingon ZapMe!, when corporate President Frank Vigil clicked on a Schick Razorbanner it brought up a full-motion commercial featuring "an attractiveblonde confidently marching through the streets as people rushed to protect herfreshly shaved legs." According to a ZapMe! spokesperson, clicking on abanner might equally well mean being transported to a corporate web site or "prettymuch whatever they [the corporation] want" to get the message across.14

Policy issue: The extentto which ZapMe! is used for required lessons is the degree to which studentsare forced by school authorities to view certain favored commercials (i.e.,those provided by ZapMe! partners). In addition, the values promoted incommercials may very often directly or indirectly conflict with a school’soverall curricular message.

4) ZapMe! provides aggregated dataon students to its advertisers. The company monitors which of its web sites aremost frequently visited and collects information on each student’s age, gender,grade level, and zip code. This information can then be used to targetadvertising campaigns.15

Policy issue: Theprovision of student demographic information to special interests, even inaggregate form, raises concerns about the right of children and their familiesto privacy. This is made even more troublesome because the information isgathered by requiring that students provide in order to participate in a schoolactivity.

5) ZapMe! requires thatparticipating schools provide use of its equipment on school property duringafter school hours for "community education, corporate training and/ortesting purposes." ZapMe! recently announced that it had entered astrategic partnership with Sylvan Learning Systems. Sylvan will use ZapMe!’saccess to participating schools to launch internet-based educational andtesting services offered primarily during after school hours.16

Policy issue: Schoolsrepresent a significant capital expenditure. The issue of whether or not afor-profit entity should be granted free access to school facilities to engagein its business activities or promote its products and services deservescareful consideration. Such access may be construed as unfairly favoring aparticular profit-making entity not only by providing free space but by, ineffect, promoting that particular entity’s products and services throughprogrammatic tie-ins with ZapMe!. Also community and student groups may havetheir access limited by the presence of corporate activities.

6) ZapMe! requires that schoolsparticipate in what it terms "take home programs." These aremarketing materials will be designed by ZapMe! sponsors for students to takehome with them. They may promote contests and other activities that supplementa sponsor’s "on-line message."17

Policy issue: Schoolsare required to participate in ZapMe!’s "take home" program. Studentparticipation is voluntary. Nevertheless, it would likely be a small minorityof students who would not take home promotional materials handed out by theschool. The issue here is the extent to which the school should be an agent ofZapMe! sponsors in reaching students, their parents, and other members of thefamily.

7) The ZapMe! Points Programoffers students prizes as a reward for spending time on the ZapMe! system.

Policy issue: Prizesawarded by the ZapMe! Points Program are sent directly to students’ homes.18This offers ZapMe!’s corporate sponsors another avenue of entrance intostudent’s homes, access that can be used to promote their products andservices. It also allows ZapMe! to compile data such as student addresses.

Conclusion

The issues of whether suchtechnologies represent an opportunity to positively transform the processes ofteaching and learning and what the relative emphasis given electronictechnologies in school reform should be are far from settled. Nevertheless,throughout America, politicians, educators, policy makers, corporateexecutives, and community leaders have already become vocal advocates ofcomputer/internet technology in the schools. Software and hardware companiesclaim only to be responding to the market’s demands for their products, but infact they have had and continue to have a guiding hand in developing thismarket and creating the policy environment in which it can flourish. In thisenvironment, commercialized programs, which promise free hardware and/orsoftware and/or Internet access appeal to many schools. The question that hasyet to be seriously considered is whether and under what circumstancescommercialized programs are likely to do more harm than good.

 

NOTES

1. George F. Will, "Leave theSleeves Alone," Washington Post, 8 April 1999, p. A31.

2. ZapMe!Corporation, "ZapMe!Press Kit: Corporate Backgrounder," no date.

3. ZapMe! Corporation,"ZapMe! Press Kit: Fact Sheet," no date.

4. 13 April 1999 telephoneconversation between Steven Manning and Randi Polanich, ZapMe! spokeswoman.

5. ZapMe! Corporation corporatewebsite, "The Package" page (www.zapme.com/corp/schools/s_pack.html),and "Benefits" page (www.zapme.com/corp/schools/s_ben.html), cited on15 April 1999.

6. ZapMe! Corporation,"ZapMe! Netspace Assembles Leading Technology Companies to Bring FreeComputer Labs to Schools," 21 October 1998 press release.

7. ZapMe! Corporation,"ZapMe! Press Kit: Corporate Sponsors," 22 October 1998.

8. Andrew Hagelshaw, Center forCommercial-Free Public Education, "Notes and Impressions After Receiving aDemonstration of Zap Me," 17 December 1998.

9. ZapMe! Corporation,"ZapMe! Press Kit: Corporate Backgrounder," no date.

10. "ZapMe! Offers FreeIntranet Computers in Exchange for Ads Aimed at Kids," eSchool News,10 August 1998.

11. ZapMe! Corporation corporatewebsite, "Conditions" page (www.zapme.com/corp/schools/s_cond.html),cited on 15 April 1999.

12. Andrew Hagelshaw, Center forCommercial-Free Public Education, "Notes and Impressions After Receiving aDemonstration of Zap Me," 17 December 1998.

13. See Captive Kids:Commercial Pressures on Kids at School (Yonkers, N.Y.: Consumers UnionEducation Services, 1995); and Alex Molnar, Giving Kids the Business: TheCommercialization of America’s Schools (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press,1996), ch. 2.

14. Chris Allbritton, "FreeComputers Blur Line Between Student and Shopper, Critics Say," AssociatedPress, 30 November 1998.

15. Chris Allbritton, "FreeComputers Blur Line Between Student and Shopper, Critics Say," AssociatedPress, 30 November 1998.

16. ZapMe! Corporation,"Sylvan Learning Systems to Launch Internet-Based Education and TrainingPrograms Utilizing ZapMe! Network," 31 March 1999 press release.

17. DD Marketing, "ZapMe!Frequently Asked Questions," information packet, no date.

18. Andrew Hagelshaw, Center forCommercial-Free Public Education, "Notes and Impressions After Receiving aDemonstration of Zap Me," 17 December 1998.

19. The work of Douglas D. Nobleis informative on this subject. See "A Bill of Goods: The Early Marketingof Computer-Based Education and Its Implications for the Present Moment,"in Bruce J. Biddle, Thomas L. Good, and Ivor F. Goodson, eds., InternationalHandbook of Teachers and Teaching (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1997); and Douglas D. Noble, Classroom Arsenal: MilitaryResearch, Information Technology, and Public Education (London: FalmerPress, 1991).

 

This paper was posted on theCACE website on 19 April 1999 and was last updated on 19 April 1999.