Government department warns of ?commercialism? in U.S. public schools

July 31, 2012

Free Market Foundation

The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report warning that “commercialism” in public schools is widespread and increasing, and that schools are not prepared to deal with it. The GAO recommended that states develop policies to deal with the trend of private firms supplementing school budgets in exchange for advertising in the schools, access to student consumers and collection of marketing data.

The study revealed that only 19 states have statutes or regulations for school-related commercial activities and no state specifically addresses market research practices, even though 95 percent of Internet sites directed at children collect some personal data.

State laws governing commercialism in education vary widely with Maryland, for example, allowing restricted advertising on school bus shelters, while Virginia restricts advertising on or in school buses.

New York forbids commercial activities on school campuses, but permits commercial sponsorship of school activities.

In Mississippi, school boards are allowed by law to offer protective textbook covers to advertisers, while Florida allows school boards to set their own policies on advertising.

Commercial sponsorship can have some unsettling consequences. A student in Georgia was suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on a school-sponsored “Coke Day.” One mathematics textbook teaches fractions by having students calculate how many children prefer the video game system Sony PlayStation over its competitor, Sega’s Saturn. The roof of a school in Texas was painted with a Dr. Pepper logo.

Source: Andrea Billups, Report: States Not Policing Ads in the Classroom,” Washington Times, September 15, 2000.

For text http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00169.pdf

For more on State & Local Spending http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/edu9.html#d

RSA Note:
Imagine if all the schools were private and entrepreneurial. Advertising and other fees could reduce the cost of tuition without interfering with the rights of students or their privacy. The problem of the Pepsi shirt and the school Coke day is a matter of identifying rights. There was surely no contract between the student and the school that justified the suspension. In South Africa we had the case of a rugby union signing a contract that was in conflict with a pre-existing advertising contract between a competing firm and one of the rugby unions team members. Whose contract is to prevail? Such matters have to be resolved according to law and by negotiated agreement. Such an episode would provide an enlightened school with an opportunity for true learning and the confirmation of its own adherence to the principles of true justice.

Eustace Davie, Director