Reading

Published by the Center for a New American Dream

A quarterly report on consumption, quality of life and the environment No. 19, SPRING 2002 ◆ $3 Page 3 Letter from Betsy Taylor

Reading, Writing and ... Retail?

Schools Get Low Marks for Allowing Consumer Culture in the Classroom

Page 4

By Eric Brown

What’s Happening at the Center

T

Page 5 In Praise of Unsung Heroes

Page 8 Tracking the Glimmer of Hope

Page 10 Bad, Good and Truly Ridiculous

Page 12 Book Reviews & Recommendations

Page 13 Fun Box: Springtime 101

Page 14 Step by Step: Take a CAFE Break

Page 15 Orwell’s Corner

Page 16 Please Help Us Spread the Word

he average American school in 2002 has become a high-tech, spiffed-up version of a Marrakesh bazaar—you just can’t turn your head without someone trying to sell you something. Or sell your kids something, to be a little more precise. Soda and candy machines in school lunchrooms are commonplace, millions of children are forced to watch television commercials for junk food and violent Hollywood films via Channel One’s in-school television network, sports uniforms are covered with logos, text books are filled with brand names and school curricula include corporate-sponsored “lessons” about the environmental benefits of the oil industry, the timber industry, the nuclear energy industry, and the pesticide industry, just to name a few. So what’s a concerned citizen to do about protecting children from the impact of advertising and marketing in our schools? Toss out the marketers, says Gary Ruskin, executive director of the non-profit Commercial Alert. Ruskin’s group is putting its money

where its mouth is, by holding what it’s calling a “National Ad Slam” contest for the most creative effort to expel advertisers and commercialism from schools during the 2001-2002 school year. Students, teachers, parents, school board officials and concerned community members are encouraged to create an action plan to de-commercialize their school. The $5,000 first prize will be awarded directly to the school. For schools agreeing to forgo seemingly lucrative contracts with companies peddling soft drinks, candy and advertising, “the prize is a form of compensatory relief,” says Ruskin. Perhaps. However, the true costs of entering into such agreements often go unnoticed. For example, in exchange for a $670,000 contract with Pepsi, Montgomery Blair High School in suburban Maryland was required to break a state law requiring that vending machines be turned off during school hours. Montgomery Blair principal Phillip Gainous continued on page 2

Reading, Writing and ... Retail? continued from page 1

admitted to openly defying the law in order to comply with the contract. Students in schools with Channel One, a twelveminute news and advertising program viewed daily in 12,000 middle and high schools across the country. In return for requiring students to watch TV during class time, Channel One lends the schools television equipment and VCRs. One of the charter advertisers that tested Channel One before its launch in 1988 was Clearasil, which was owned by Procter and Gamble at the time. As a marketing executive that worked on the brand, Rob Erlichman noted that P&G was willing to test the idea of paying "premium rates comparable to those charged by If adver tiser s MTV and other teen-targeted programming" to show ads for Clearasil, based profit by the on the idea that the “forced nature” of exposure to the advertising would result a r r a n g e m e n t , i t ’s in increased effectiveness. Erlichman acknowledged P&G executives considn o t s o c l e a r t h a t ered the potential controversy over this new medium but noted that, “the fact schools do. that Channel One was an effective tool to sell pimple cream was the single driving factor” in the decision to support Channel One. But if advertisers profited by the arrangement, it’s not so clear that schools do. The hidden costs in lost class time appear to far outweigh the free hardware a school might receive, according to a 1998 study by Professor Alex Molnar, director of the University of Wisconsin’s Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education, and Max Sawicky, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. According to Molnar and Sawicky, this “free” equipment comes at a very high price. Their research revealed that taxpayers in the U.S. pay $1.8 billion dollars per year for the class time lost to Channel One. Campaigns to rid schools of commercialism, while difficult to pull off, have nevertheless proven effective in some high-profile instances. Recently, the Madison, Wisconsin school district successfully cancelled its exclusive contract with Coca Cola, and is now able to offer milk and juice to its students, a practice banned by the previous agreement. In Seattle, a group called the Citizens’ Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools successfully led a lobbying and public education effort to convince the Seattle school system to phase out Channel One and to place tough limits on the kinds of advertising it allows on school property. It is exactly this kind of creativity that Commercial Alert is attempting to harness with its contest. The rules for 2

◆

SPRING 2002

What They’re Saying... This topic has been the subject of an ongoing conversation on the Center for a New American Dream’s online discussion board, the New Dream Forum. Post your own response at www.newdream.org/discuss. Here are some excerpts from the conversation: Get soda machines out of schools! Posted by Arvin_P It continues to mystify me that parents do not get more angry about the fact that school districts are selling soda, candy and other really unhealthy junk in schools.They make the excuse that this is the only way to raise money, but it seems that in fact, it’s just an EASY way to raise money. I mean, why don’t we just put students to work making license plates and dispense with the teaching altogether? Soda machines in schools Posted by Redgirl What really irritates me about schools making deals with advertisers and junk food suppliers is that to children, school officials are authority figures. Schools are supposed to act in the best interests of kids, not in the best interests of big business. Kids believe that if schools are selling Coke or Pepsi with lunches, then this must be an acceptable nutritional choice. It’s not, and I think there’s a conflict of interest when an institution that’s supposed to educate my children about health and nutrition is making money off of nutritionally void, high-calorie, caffeinated beverages.

the contest participants are simple: Rule #1 Be creative. Rule #2 Tell Commercial Alert, in writing, by May 15, 2002, what you’ve done to rid a school (or schools) of advertisements. Include any creative or interesting documents or materials. Rule #3 Don’t break the law or damage public or private property. In the end, says Ruskin, “our goal is simple—to kick commercialism out of schools. And it seems to be happening.” For more information about Commercial Alert’s National Ad Slam Contest, click on www.commercialalert.org or call 503235-8012.