Schoolbus Advertisements: Smart Policy Decision or Inappropriate?

[RandomPhantom700]

Article found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/ap_on_bi_ge/us_school_bus_ads

School districts say it's practically free money, and advertisers love the captive audience that school buses provide.
That's the problem, say opponents: Children are being forced to travel to school on moving media kiosks, and the tactic isn't much different than dressing teachers in sponsor-emblazoned uniforms.

The idea can be traced back about 15 years, but budget woes have led to a recent resurgence.

Personally, I'm all for it. With school district budgets getting tighter then ever, if putting ads on a schoolbus lets the district maintain even just one program that would otherwise be cut, why not?

I also think the comparison to sponsor-labeled uniforms is misleading; 1) a teacher wearing a "McDonalds" shirt in class is far more likely to distract students and 2) making teachers wear a sponsor-labeled uniform is far more of a personal freedoms issue (although not technically violative) then putting an ad on the side of a bus.

So, thoughts? Savy investment for strapped school districts or a bad message to students and communities?

 

[CoryKS]

Fine, as long as they don't send mixed signals. I mean, don't post ads for McDonalds, Coke, Skittles, etc., have pop dispensers in the halls, fast food in the cafeteria and then start bitching about how fat are kids are getting.

 

[Carol]

I don't have an issue with the idea shown in the pic...advertising a place where you could get your hair cut, or something like that. Considering that the school is part of a town or city, this could even open up some opportunities for local businesses (esp. the indie businesses without a recognizable name) to partner with the town in hopes of getting some needed exposure, and the town getting some much needed funds.

However, it raises a few questions.

Is there a conflict of interest in accepting an ad for a private tutoring service (Sylvain, Kumon, etc.) when many schools offer some level of tutoring at no additional charge?

What about a special interest group of some sort that wants to buy advertising to influence a child's view on <insert topic here>? For example, would you let the local teacher's union make adverts telling the children that <whatever it is that the union wants> will make their school better, and therefore they should tell their parents to support <what it is that the union wants> ?

Would you allow advertisements for something that is really designed for a kid to influence their parents...such as an ad from a car company showing features on a minivan that kids would want? Car companies are already doing this to a degree in their mainstream ads, but a school bus ad will focus that further.

Would you allow ads for kids TV shows? Junk food? Sodas? What about prescription meds?

I'd like to think that the advertising would also be a way for a parent to talk about advertising with children, and how it affects them...but that would also take some parental reponsibility...

 

[Steve]

I'm gonig to have to mull this one over for a while. On the one hand, it seems like a great way for school districts to fill budget gaps, provided, as Cory said, that the ads don't send mixed signals.

On the other, it seems a little sinister to me to give that amount of direct, captive access to our kids under the control of the school board. If the school board is controlling who can and can't advertise... I'm not sure I can get behind that. My school board is often guilty of programs that look good on paper, gets them awards, but does no real good for the kids.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I have a much better idea.

get our Education system focused on Education and get out of all the other crap that is burning and wasting billions of dollars a year in our nation.
Contract it out to a private contractor, and let them advertise if they choose.
I get disgusted every time I see the figures for what is wasted on the damn busing business in public schools.... absolutely disgusted.

 

[Omar B]

Money in schools is a good thing as long as they are going to the right place. I'm all for it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

On the other, it seems a little sinister to me to give that amount of direct, captive access to our kids under the control of the school board. If the school board is controlling who can and can't advertise... I'm not sure I can get behind that. My school board is often guilty of programs that look good on paper, gets them awards, but does no real good for the kids.

Well, the primary purpose of the advertising is to bring in money, so it's not really a for-the-kids educational program, unless you mean indirectly through helping to finance such.

As for the schoolboard's discretion, I'm a little confused. Are you saying you'd rather the board didn't have discretion in who gets to advertise? That could lead to more problems than it solves.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I have a much better idea.

get our Education system focused on Education and get out of all the other crap that is burning and wasting billions of dollars a year in our nation.
Contract it out to a private contractor, and let them advertise if they choose.
I get disgusted every time I see the figures for what is wasted on the damn busing business in public schools.... absolutely disgusted.

The merits of privatizing education is a separate (though related) topic from the current discussion. Feel free to start a new thread, of course; just trying to prevent thread drift.

 

[Steve]

Well, the primary purpose of the advertising is to bring in money, so it's not really a for-the-kids educational program, unless you mean indirectly through helping to finance such.

As for the schoolboard's discretion, I'm a little confused. Are you saying you'd rather the board didn't have discretion in who gets to advertise? That could lead to more problems than it solves.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that my own school board has demonstrated what I will call questionable judgement in the past regarding academic issues. If that's their primary purpose and I have questions about their priorities, I'm very uncomfortable giving them the kind of control over my children that selective advertising would represent.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that my own school board has demonstrated what I will call questionable judgement in the past regarding academic issues. If that's their primary purpose and I have questions about their priorities, I'm very uncomfortable giving them the kind of control over my children that selective advertising would represent.

In that case, the best answer I can come up with is to use PTA meetings to address any questionable choices by the board. Clearly, that's not going to be an absolute answer, and I know many PTAs are little more than gossip groups. However, I still think restricting the board's discretion would be much more problematic. If they couldn't pick and choose, they'd have to put whoevers advertisement brought in the most $$, even if it's Budweiser's.

 

[terryl965]

Me and my wife are teachers, she still has a job, me I was laid off due to cutbacks. The district does not have enough money to pay people, they are closing schools down and laying people off. I am all for it as long as it does not cross the line about junk food in the schools. They ar a business and need to be able to help provide money for teachers. Since I am on the subject teachers make no money compared to other fields that require no education but yet they are looked upon as mentors for the youth of tomorrow. Give a teacher a hug when you see one just becaus ethey can use it every now and then.

 

[Carol]

There are a few ways of going about it that I wouldn't bother me. If the advertising is kept on the outside of the bus, and not the inside, the children's exposure will be limited. The other is an advertising approach that keeps the community in mind, instead of the kids.

In other words, the target of the advertisement is not the children, but the commuters and other people out and about that would see the ads on the bus as they travel.

One of the buses in the article shows an ad for a local bank. The kids probably care less, but it gives the bank to promote some community goodwill, by showing to anyone passing by that it supports the schools.

What the ads won't do, however, is fix mismanaged budgets. For a school to benefit from the ad revenue, their house will need to be reasonably clean.

 

[Darksoul]

-I think Carol nailed it. There are some serious budget issues going within public education. Schools are supposed to be getting so much money; where the heck is it going? Superintendent's paychecks? Seriously! If the money is being wasted, that is what should be fixed first. That would require some oversight, something I know people here on MT would love to see in many areas of life in the U.S.

-Another thought about this concerns the lottery. Doesn't it say on most lotto websites that the money from the taxation on the winnings is reinvested into the education system? I've been skeptical of that for a while now. Probably the same people who take money of of Social Security and spend it on other things. Where is the money going? Follow it!

-As for the school bus ads...I'm really not sure. I like the idea of advertising local/indie business but I'm sure bigger/corporate types would claim discrimination if they weren't able to advertise in the same venue. Maybe a decision that could be left up to the school board, or perhaps the parents. I just don't know.

-I'll ask my girlfriend when she gets home from work tonight. She has a ten year old daughter in a school district that has faced some serious budget issues in the last couple of years, and possible more cuts in the next school year. Something is certainly wrong.

Andrew

 

[CoryKS]

Schools are supposed to be getting so much money; where the heck is it going?

IMO, schools spend waaay too much money on nice-to-have things that are not really necessities. Elementary schools do not need state-of-the-art computer labs. K-6 children don't need Palm Pilots. And I don't give a damn if you're the "first Green school in Olathe"! Go be self-righteous with your own money.

 

[Steve]

In that case, the best answer I can come up with is to use PTA meetings to address any questionable choices by the board. Clearly, that's not going to be an absolute answer, and I know many PTAs are little more than gossip groups. However, I still think restricting the board's discretion would be much more problematic. If they couldn't pick and choose, they'd have to put whoevers advertisement brought in the most $$, even if it's Budweiser's.

I see where you're headed, although I wouldn't put PTA in any kind of position of authority either. I could go into more details if you want, but that sounds, frankly, even scarier to me.

Ultimately, though, the deeper issue is that, for better or worse many of our kids go to school on a bus. Am I comfortable with anyone making non-academic decisions about what infomercials my kids are basically forced to watch in this time? Hell, as a group we can't even completely agree on matters of curriculum.

I guess, while I'm not opposed to inventive, unconventional means of generating funds for the school district, my gut right now puts me on the side of this being a bad idea.

Addressing some of the other things said, regarding schools being a business, I have to admit that I had a pretty strong, visceral reaction to that statement. I understand that there are different philosophies on this subject, but I believe that schools aren't businesses at all, and I believe that treating them as such is a huge mistake. Schools are institutions. In my opinion a school is as critical to the community as a fire station. Considerations in a school should be made based upon what's best for the kids. Treating schools like businesses is, I think, a horrible idea.

Funding issues? Hell yeah there's a problem. The superintendent of our school district makes over $200k per year! That's crazy. The average salary of our administrative staff in the district is over $110k per year. Our teachers? Among the lowest paid in the State of Washington.

There are things that need to be done, but the more I think about it, the more I think that advertising is not the way to do it.

 

[Carol]

If the technology is donated, I don't care. Something Apple has done for years is donate Macs to schools in hopes of schoolchildren asking their parents to buy a Mac. I'm sure Microsoft does similar things through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

I think the costs come from expenditures that the parents don't easily see.

Employers everywhere are have been seriously concerned with the rising costs of benefits. In my thread Why Is This Public School Being Closed (maybe)? I describe a situation where teachers with an average salary of over 62,000 per year (which I don't mind) may be forcing the city to close a better performing school because benefit costs are so high, and the teachers will not accept an offer form the city to raise their medical copay from $5 to $15.

There are also a lot of elements of corruption. There are schools that have shelled out millions of dollars out of their budget because the city has sweetheart deals with local contractors. An example: The city of Lawrence, MA which is an old mill city that struggled with a lot of problems.

The nearly all-Latino high school lost its accreditation entirely from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s. When they finally got it back, what did the city do? Announce they were going to spend $30,000,000 to build a brand new high school. Parents in the community begged the city to find cheaper alternatives that use existing spaces. The parents wanted more teachers.

Well...Old mill towns often have a lot of existing spaces. In addition, the high school had plenty of room for renovation and updates, because 8 years of lost acreditation took a lot of bodies out of the school. By and large, the only folks remaining were the folks that had absolutely no other option. The school is majority-Latino, and its been reported that at leat 90 percent of the students do not speak English at home. Doesn't it make sense that the city may need to make exta efforts to reach these kids that are still remaining in the system?

The result: The 30 Million dollar high school opened in 2008.

Of the 332 school districts in Massachusetts, Lawrence still ranks in the bottom 3 for performance on standardized tests.

These are just two cities in Essex County, MA.

 

[Steve]

IMO, schools spend waaay too much money on nice-to-have things that are not really necessities. Elementary schools do not need state-of-the-art computer labs. K-6 children don't need Palm Pilots. And I don't give a damn if you're the "first Green school in Olathe"! Go be self-righteous with your own money.

I don't know about this. I'm of the opinion that schools should give some thought to what they buy. Our school district is guilty of buying really cool gadgets without having ANY idea of how to integrate them into the curriculum. Exposing kids to technology, incorporating technology in the classroom and giving kids the skills they'll need to compete are great. I'm all for it, particularly for kids who otherwise don't have access to these things. But do it smart. Give it some thought. Instead of giving each kid a laptop without a real plan to integrate them into the curriculum, maybe provide computers to kids who can't otherwise afford them.

My daughter weighs about 60 lbs. They basically wanted her to carry home her books and binder in a back pack that weighed about 20 lbs, plus a laptop that weighs about 15 lbs to and from school every day. It's a walking school about a mile from our house. So, rain or shine, one mile, lugging over half her body weight. And the school has a rule against carring packs to classes, so she isn't allowed to carry a back pack that doesn't fit in her locker. Of course, no backpack with wheels will fit inside the locker, so rolling carts are out the question. Of course, I raised a stink and fought for some accomodation, but the point remains that this is ridiculous.

That said, I can think of some really good ways to incorporate laptops and such that would teach the kids valuable things. I guess, trying to get back to the point in my rambling post here, it's not WHAT they're buying. Often, I have a problem with how and why they buy stuff. There's seldom any real planning given to it. Instead, it seems to me that school boards make decisions based upon trendy, feel good data that makes them look good but has very little benefit for the kids.

 

[CoryKS]

I don't know about this. I'm of the opinion that schools should give some thought to what they buy. Our school district is guilty of buying really cool gadgets without having ANY idea of how to integrate them into the curriculum. Exposing kids to technology, incorporating technology in the classroom and giving kids the skills they'll need to compete are great. I'm all for it, particularly for kids who otherwise don't have access to these things. But do it smart. Give it some thought. Instead of giving each kid a laptop without a real plan to integrate them into the curriculum, maybe provide computers to kids who can't otherwise afford them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not any sort of Luddite. Computers are my bread and butter, after all. But I don't think that exposure to technology is required at the grade school level. Kids pick things up so much faster than adults, there's no reason to think they would suffer for waiting until the junior high/high school level to begin hands-on training. If anything, they would be better served by learning the theoretical concepts behind the technology - math, logic, syntax. These are things that can be studied with a book, pencil, and piece of paper.

Carol brings up a good point about donated equipment, which I'm sure is quite helpful. Although my understanding is that often those donations are intended to lock the school into a particular hardware in order to make money on software purchases.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

The merits of privatizing education is a separate (though related) topic from the current discussion. Feel free to start a new thread, of course; just trying to prevent thread drift.

I said nothing of privatizing education, I reread what I wrote, and it was not completely clear.... I meant that our public education system needs to stick to education, get out of the busing business all together, they have proven they are a failure at trying to do it. They need to get out of the busing all together and contract out for a fraction of the price it costs them to do it now. Its not another thread, its quite specific to what this is talking about, although I will admit it was not written as clearly as it should have been.

 

[Steve]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not any sort of Luddite. Computers are my bread and butter, after all. But I don't think that exposure to technology is required at the grade school level. Kids pick things up so much faster than adults, there's no reason to think they would suffer for waiting until the junior high/high school level to begin hands-on training. If anything, they would be better served by learning the theoretical concepts behind the technology - math, logic, syntax. These are things that can be studied with a book, pencil, and piece of paper.

Carol brings up a good point about donated equipment, which I'm sure is quite helpful. Although my understanding is that often those donations are intended to lock the school into a particular hardware in order to make money on software purchases.

I'm with you. My point is basically that I'm receptive to the idea of technology at any level, really, as long as there is a reasonable, rational plan to integrate it in a meaningful way into the curriculum. Simple questions like, "How does this improve learning?" should be answered before spending the money. If someone could present compelling evidence that computers would improve kids' grasp of math concepts, I'd be all for it. But, like you, I don't believe it's a given. Sometimes, old school is still the best way to do it (forgive me for the pun).