BC Society for Public Education
Submission to Committee I of the VSB RE: ADVERTISING IN SCHOOLS draft policy

Last June we came before this committee with a submission regarding the district’s sponsorship and advertising policies. In that submission, we outlined the BC Society for Public Education’s position on the importance of protecting the integrity of public education by establishing a clear advertising and sponsorship policy to ensure the needs and interests of students are always put first.

We noted that too-small budgets put schools in a difficult position when it comes to funding many resources and items that used to be paid for with government funding. In some cases, corporations, businesses and marketers have been quick to step up to the plate with opportunities to partner with schools and PACs to provide funding through sponsorships, partnerships or programs which use schools to market to children and their families.

We spoke of our concern about mixing the goals of education with the goals of business, and of the important roles schools must play in educating children to think critically and recognize when they are being manipulated by advertisers and marketers.

We also acknowledged that there are some responsible, mutually beneficial programs in place between businesses and schools that are working well, and need to be recognized and supported by the new policy.

After we made our submission, some of you invited us to review the new draft policy and report back to you with our feedback. So, here we are.

Our review of the draft is, on the whole, very positive. Clearly, a great deal of time, thought and effort have gone into creating a proposed policy that recognizes and addresses the increasingly complex world where schools are regarding by some as prime, captive marketing opportunities. The drafters of the policy have also done a very good job of finding middle ground by creating guidelines for responsible commercial interests to work in or with schools in a positive and responsible way.

We have some specific and some more general recommendations which we will list in the order they arise in the draft.

Recommendations:

1. We see a need to address the issue of the appropriateness of using funds raised through sponsorships or partnerships to fund classroom learning resources that should be publicly funded. We are not asking for an outright ban, but a warning about the potential implications of shifting learning resource costs to private sector funders.

2. A very specific suggestion we have is to change the wording in Section 2 (Value Statement) at the end of the second paragraph by substituting the word “compromised” in place of the “distorted.”

3. Still in Section 2, now at number 4d, where the draft policy includes an alternate, we would be satisfied with the first version as a reasonable compromise (not the alternate) although we appreciate what the alternate is trying to address. Perhaps this could be tinkered with to permit the posting of flyers, posters, bulletins regarding sports camps, music lesson and tutors on bulletin boards directed at parents, but with restrictions on requiring, or even requesting, teachers to stuff these items in with report cards.

4. Moving on to Section 3 and the Specific Limitations on District and School Based Advertising, on the third point which refers to distribution of advertising through students, we support this point but advise that it might raise a create conflict for the distribution of materials such as Scholastic catalogues, which are currently distributed in many classrooms. As a compromise, perhaps these materials, subject to administrator approval, could be made available for parents to pick up if they choose to do so. Information about this option could be communicated to parents through school newsletters. This compromise would allow those who choose to purchase products from this corporation to continue to do so, without utilizing students as involuntary couriers of marketing materials, to which some parents object.

5. Now jumping ahead — which means we like the parts in between — to Section 4, under School Level Approval Process, in the first bracketed section of the first sentence, there is a reference to the PAC or SPC. We recommend removing the SPC, as this function is not within SPC’s specific mandate in addition to the fact that SPCs comprise parents, staff and administrators, making them a poor vehicle through which to receive purely parent input. PACs, which are also inlcuded in the draft, are better suited to this role.

Still under School Level Approval Process, now at item #2, we would like to comment on the issue of plaques. In cases where the plaques are intended to be installed permanently, we would like the policy to specify that plaques will not feature logos, but contributor/sponsor names may, if deemed appropriate, appear in regular type.

In the same section, under #3, we suggest the wording be changed from “Recognition can...” to “Recognition should...”

6. Moving along to Section 5, in the discussion of sponsor identification logos, we note that the draft policy states that “School-based personnel shall be the primary decision-makers in the schools regarding whether a sponsor identification logo is for identification or advertising purposes.” We respectfully suggest there be a process outlined in the policy to be followed if there is any dispute about the decision (ie: review by the Superintendent). Our rationale for this recommendation is that there may be gray areas, such as when a non-profit organization with which the school is working is in turn sponsored by a for-profit corporation which may be very creatively finding ways to reach our children by placing logos on printed forms to be filled out by students and/or their parents. This could cause some disagreement among parties at the school-level that could reasonably be settled at the district level by personnel who are very familiar with the policy and its application.

That is the end of our specific recommendations, and here are some more general points:

1. The first point is actually a question: Has this committee determined what the financial implications of this policy could be? For example, do we know approximately how much revenue is currently being raised in schools through activities covered by this draft policy? While we would like to see a clear and strong policy that protects the integrity of schools, it is important that its financial implications be considered to ensure the policy receives support and compliance and stands the test of time and shifting political winds.

To be effective and viable over time, it would be helpful if an annual review process was also established to track the effect of the policy on the quantity and quality of coroporate sponsorships in the district, along with reporting on the types of sponsorships in place and the amounts of money raised.

2. We recognize that this policy must walk a very fine line. On the one hand, we want it to protect our children and the integrity of our schools from intrusions of the marketplace — keeping schools as safe harbours where critical thought, discussion, social and personal responsibility flourish without intrusion from market forces — while on the other hand, we recognize that many schools and businesses have developed beneficial working relationships which bring schools closer to their community, build relationships and understanding, and of course, bring in much-needed revenue.

We also recognize that this board represents a diverse city with a wide range of views and that in fairness and in order to stand the test of time, the policy must provide some positions of compromise that manage to protect children without closing the door on corporate or business involvement with schools. We hope some of our suggestions will contribute to a strong, workable policy that contributes to healthy schools where education and freedom of thought come first and foremost.

To conclude this submission, we would like to thank and commend everyone who has worked to bring this policy along and who has recognized and acted on the need to protect the integrity of our public schools.

We hope the final policy will be strong and clear, allowing room for responsible partnerships and other arrangements that meet the needs of schools without compromising educational standards.

And lastly, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our input and value the trustees’ commitment to listening to education partners on all important issues affecting our students.

Thank you.

Submitted by Patti Bacchus and Patricia Fahrni on behalf of the BC Society for Public Education.
www.bcspe.ca
October 24, 2005