Corporate Sponsership in Schools

[DeletedUser]

http://californiawatch.org/dailyrep...p-schools-can-harm-students-experts-say-13464
Despite what the article says, I think corporate sponsorship has the potential for good, both financially and educationally, if managed properly. If schools can be matched with companies, this partnership can alleviate the lack of funding in schools and perhaps provide an opportunity for growth in the future.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're kidding me right? Corporations having influence on our children's educational system is a good thing?

 

[DeletedUser]

It's just advertising, it's not like they have a hand in the curriculum.

 

[DeletedUser]

Where do you draw the line? Can Playboy sponsor the gym class? Or what about Smith & Wesson...

OK extreme examples, but do you REALLY trust your school board or publicly elected official to restrain themselves when 'lobbied' by biz with enough money? PTA can set the rules sure, but then it becomes a mess...

 

[DeletedUser17143]

I don't think it makes a difference. You see way more corporate sponsoring before YouTube videos, when you listen to the radio, watching telly and just being outside. It's not like these kids are being exposed to anything new. I can only see it as a good thing because it makes money for the schools so they can provide the resources to give kids a better education. As long as the advertisements aren't like the advertisements you get in pop ups advertising free web cam sex and stuff, I don't see the problem. I don't buy into the whole advertisements make us less intelligent.

 

[DeletedUser]

Exactly, yidboi. Just educate kids in media literacy and there you go. Besides, the moment anything happens, there'll be 20 parents screaming bloody murder and there's the end of that.

 

[DeletedUser]

This history lesson is brought to you by Taco Bell, where only 40% of our meat is pink slime and we are not really sure what the rest is... Now hiring for slave wages!

 

[DeletedUser563]

although playboy sold out to a $^%$$$$ canadian company they remain a quality product. I dont see why they would sponsor your gym therefore or involve themselves with such nonsense. So keep them out of the argument. This is just a way to introduce children to their products when their young so that they can key into nostalgic affiliations later. "i was in coke high school, what fun times" drinks his 500ml can of coke kinda thing. If they really wanted to sponsor education why is the advertising trade-off a requirement. Rather let them sponsor the entire education department. I know for a fact that if particularly pepsi sponsor a sports event they do not allow their competitors products to be sold in the venue. So guess this is the same. Get them hooked early.

rice it has a massive effect on children for instance i remember coke used to come to our schools and then hold "yo yo" displays and give you free coke. When I was young I belonged to the Simba club (potato chip company). This was all in primary school. It certainly led to these products being put into the "friends" category early on.

Its unfair for other local businesses if schools allow local sponsorship - like for instance a local doctor will sponsor the soccer teams jersey. Of course this leads to him getting more clients. I personally hate such brown-nosing stuff and sponsor my local school by giving parents the finger when i drive past (jk). But is has a massive negative effect on my business. But I belong to the "old school" way of thinking "you go to work you do your job good and you go home" Nothing more should be expected of anyone.

 

[DeletedUser]

Public companies are not charities. They have a responsibility to make returns to their shareholders. If their directors put money into something without regard to profit they are defrauding their shareholders - the 'owners' of the company - and would be liable to dismissal and possibly prosecution.
Shareholders would generally only endorse sponsorship promotion if it showed some potential for yielding increased profits and thus, dividends, somewhere down the line.

Where I live, education is compusory up to the age of 16. It would be hard to defend the principle of universal, compulsory primary and secondary education if schools were turned into revenue generation centres for profit-driven enterprises, which is what my earlier point entails. So, no, I think it's a ridiculous idea that undermines the principle of universal education.

Unless the money was shareholder approved, and donated anonymously. Then it would be just like a (voluntary) tax - something that the proponents of this idea would presumably find abhorrent and are constantly devising ways of avoiding.