Re: VSB Corporate Sponsorship/Advertising Policy

Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to provide input to the district’s Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy review. My name is Patti Bacchus and I am a director of the BC Society for Public Education. Joining me in this presentation is Patricia Fahrni, also a director of the BCSPE.

For those of you who are not familiar with our organization, the BC Society for Public Education comprises individuals who have worked closely with the Save our Schools movement. We come to our public education activism through our work in our children’s schools and our participation in Parent Advisory Councils. In founding the BCSPE, we recognized the need for parents and citizens to come together in a sustained effort to support public education and protect its integrity.

As you know all too well, over the last dozen years or so, underfunding of public schools has created needs throughout the system for which there is simply not enough budgeted money to meet. This has created the demand for alternative sources of funding, whether it be in the form of fees, fundraising, sponsorships, advertising, international students, facility rentals or partnerships with businesses and corporations.

So as trustees, you have the challenging task of allocating too-small budgets, making difficult choices about what to support and what not to support, all the while protecting students from outside influences who might seek to exploit them or compromise the integrity of our public schools.

We appreciate and commend the trustees for recognizing the need to review district policy regarding sponsorships and advertising. We have reviewed the existing policies and believe that while the present policy entitled PUBLIC SOLICITATIONS/ADVERTISING IN THE SCHOOLS is quite good, it conflicts with the policy entitled SPONSORSHIPS, which is, in our opinion, quite bad and not in the interests of students.

This policy review is an important opportunity for the board to establish strong guidelines that will ensure students are able to learn in an environment untainted by commercial influence. As you know, children are now exposed to unprecedented levels of marketing pressure in many facets of their lives in ways that seek to shape their values, behaviours, self-image, relationships and spending patterns. It is critical the we keep the school environment free of corporate and market pressure as schools may be the last commercial-free environments left for many — if not most — of our kids.

The BC Society for Public Education is particularly concerned about mixing the objectives of public education with the objectives of business. The purpose of public education is to enable students to learn to think independently and critically and become informed, capable participants in democratic society. The purpose of business and its advertising is to induce people to buy products or services to bring profits to itself and its shareholders. While there may be occasions that these two purposes can work together to benefit both parties, there are many risks to the integrity of public education when we look to corporate interests to fill our funding gaps.

So how do corporations benefit from reaching students through their schools? Well, here is an example of how one global publishing company — Scholastic Inc. — the parent company of Scholastic Canada, a corporate entity present in many Vancouver schools describes what it does:

In reporting over $2 billion in annual revenue in its 2004 report, Scholastic says “The Company distributes its products and services through a variety of channels, including school- based book clubs, school-based book fairs, school- based and direct-to-home continuity programs, retail stores, schools, libraries and television networks.”

Note that it refers to selling “products and services.” So it’s not just about giving kids access to reading materials. Listen to how Scholastic Inc. describes its loveable book character, Clifford: “The Clifford The Big Red Dog series is part of a comprehensive brand marketing campaign, including home entertainment, consumer products, publishing extensions, such as television tie-in books, interactive media and consumer promotions, supporting Clifford’s position as a leading pre-school brand.”

Corporations and advertisers are eager to gain not just market share, they want mind share. They want to get inside the heads of a lucrative market — our children. Not only do we need to close the doors to those seeking to profit from our kids, our schools and our teachers need to be educating students so they are able to recognize and resist corporate influence on their lives. Our concern is that if the underfunding trend continues in the absence of strong, enforced district policies, teachers, administrators and school boards will come under increasing pressure to open the doors to advertising and sponsorship, allowing market forces access to the captive market opportunity we call schools. We worry there will come a time when private commercial interests will gain increasing influence over educational goals, infringing on the autonomy of educators — bringing to mind the saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune.”

We’re not alone with these concerns. Earlier this year, some of us — and some of you — had the opportunity to to hear Heather-Jane Robertson speak at the Public Education Not For Sale conference. I will quote from her speech about privatization in education:

"Other kinds of privatization by stealth include ‘partnerships,’ On this subject, I thought that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s comments to the Gomery Inquiry were quite perfect. He was asked exactly when ‘sponsorships’ were introduced. He scratched his head, and said that he wasn’t sure, because the same stuff used to be called advertising, but then when corporations wanted to attach their name to a place or an event, they started calling it a sponsorship. “I guess they thought it sounded better,” he said. Bien sur, Jean. Corporations like ‘soft advertising,’ and associations with children and schools are warm and fuzzy, slip under the radar, and provide great social marketing opportunities. And, don’t forget, a tax write-off. The duplicity is absolutely astounding. One arm of the corporation sits around with the big guys at the Council of Chief Executive Officers – what used to be the Business Council on National Issues – demanding corporate tax cuts, more privatization and lower standards of public services – while the other arm, the ‘philanthropic one,’ tries to launder its image through partnerships with schools."

And later in her speech, Robertson noted that:

"Mindshare isn’t just about products, it’s about ideas. As Thomas Frank wrote in One Market Under God, the role of corporate propaganda is to impair our ability to think, to render us superficial and unconcerned with what is taking place around us. The role of corporate propaganda is to protect corporations from democracy."

And while we’re borrowing words from others, here is a quote from Sean Cook, who wrote the recently performed play School Inc., taken from a story that was published in the Tyee online newspaper:

"Education used to be about the student, promoting critical thinking, encouraging social and professional responsibility - now it’s about the bottom line. In short, schools are adopting the values of corporations.” He acknowledges the contradictions. “It’s a difficult dilemma - and one we explore in the play. If one sponsorship can save a program, what do we do? But if selling off children’s minds isn’t the worst thing we can do, what is? There’s no quick fix.”

We don’t think we’re quite there yet, at least in terms of selling off children’s minds. In fact we acknowledge and accept that there are some mutually beneficial arrangements in place that are working well for schools, particularly involving local businesses and community groups that demonstrate social responsibility and do not demand logo placement or advertising in return for their contributions. We do not want to discourage those responsible partnerships.

This board is in an excellent position to take a courageous stand in saying our children’s minds are not for sale and our schools are places of learning, not tools of the marketplace.

We ask the your final, adopted policy recognize that our schools will come under increasing pressure to make deals that may not be in the best interests of our students. Those deals — whether they be called advertising, sponsorships, partnerships, logo placement — might bring in much-needed money, but at what cost? We need a policy that clearly puts children first, does not leave wiggle room and will be clear enough to prevent conflict at the school level when it comes to interpreting what the policy means and how to find ways around it. There will no doubt be those who see no harm in joining hands with corporations and welcome their money and their logos without realizing that corporate dollars can come at a very high cost to our children and the integrity of our public education system.

As parents and advocates for a strong public education system, we ask you to keep public education public and keep demanding the provincial government adequately fund our schools so they can remain places of learning and independent thought.

Thank you.
BC Society for Public Education bcspe.ca
Email: patti.bacchus@bcspe.ca