please bear in mind that i am researching from a canadian perspective, so some of what i say is certainly applicable but by no means universal--although it's predominantly the same corporations--and now with the role of technology, borders matter even less than they once did.: Well, I'm glad somebody is keeping tabs on overt corporate intrusions in the public school system, I'm just concerned that your philosophy of using these "points of entry" to "expose the broader agenda" will turn out to be nothing more than a skirmish over coke machines in school hallways that the public will eventually be allowed to win so they can continue to maintain their illusion of independence from corporate mind control.
i understand your concern, and it's come up several times in my work--consequently, i have to be very conscious (all of us do) that the smaller battles do not become a substitution for the larger ones. i also find it frustrating to have to hear the argument from some people that coke and pepsi are everywhere already, so why shouldn't the school make money off of having vending machines there? or that we see these ads every day anyway, so what's the big deal about having ads/products etc. in school? of course, the fact that the school IS such an effective means of control is precisely the reason that corporations want their products/messages in the classroom, or validated/legitimized by the school environment. and when schools start talking about making money off of vending machines or having parents fundraise, it has (at least) 3 impacts--education is enhanced based on the wealth of communities and not on a commitment to equity or social improvement; in addition to paying for education with the tax system we pay for it again with donations; and if corporations receive a charitable tax receipt the public pays for that once again, too. but this really means that once again the myth that public programs are "free" is perpetuated, and there is a reinforcement that social programs are a charity and not a right.
** of course you have to bear in mind that i'm looking at this from a canadian perspective and our social system and tax system is structured somewhat differently that yours, although even here the education system is currently moving towards per-capita funding which pays lip service to "equality and fairness" while ignoring equity and justice.
Then again, I don't have ten years of research under my belt. Could you elaborate on why it is you think the "soda machine debacle" will enlightened the general public to the corporate facism that they are already enslaved to. Its just not obvious to me that one necessarily leads to the other - not for most folks anyway.
well, it certainly opens the discussion to ownership of the public system, and to whom it should be responsible. furthermore, it helps expose people to the potential of the school as a tool of control by corporations (they are there because the school is such an effective marketing environment--so what does this say about everything the school teaches and how can we try to change this), which to the majority is still a new concept.
: Also, did you mean to say that the corporations that are overtly trying to use public schools for marketing/sales are also the ones most likely to be directly involved in the design and implementation of Outcome Based education programs? I'm not sure I get the connection there either. Why would that necessarily be the case?
i don't think this is exactly what i said--although the education reform lobbists (like the national alliance of business, the conference board etc) are certainly made up of some of the larger multinationals who do want their products in classrooms and their stamp on the structure of education--like microsoft, ibm, disney, procter and gamble, j.c. penny (go figure). and they're certainly pushing if not obe then incarnations of it. the conference board (of canada) has their "employability skills" list posted in classrooms around the country to remind teachers how they should be "preparing" kids for the world of work without once realizing that it is in fact the role of employers to provide "on the job training" but so so so much more convenient for the school to do it at public expense.
: Could you also elaborate on what you mean by "democratic change"? Change of what? Corporate control of the US government? How does the public school straddle the fence on this?
perhaps i could respond to you directly on this one as it's a rather lengthy topic of dicussion. suffice it to say that the school has always contained within it the potential to indoctrinate students but also the potential to explode limitations, especially if it's made as accessible as possible (financially, philosophically, geographically etc). but i'm happy to discuss this with you whenever it's convenient.
None.
