Should schools sell cola companies exclusive rights?

NEA Today, Sep 1998 by McNosky, Dee, Gump, Judy

Yes

President Kennedy said that a rising tide lifts all boats. That statement, in reference to a growing economy, probably holds true most of the time.

But when it comes time to fund public education, that rising tide is nowhere to be found.

Regardless of the strength of the economy, it's never a good year for local school boards to raise taxes, for states to contribute more aid for public education, or for the federal government to increase the financing of its entitlement programs for our public schools.

Too often, that leaves educators with the task of finding other ways to raise money. To help fund quality public schools here, my district has chosen to sign a five-year, $1.5 million contract with Pepsi.

Check your knee-jerk reactions at the door. This isn't commercialismit's sponsorship.

Corporate sponsorship exists in almost every facet of our lives. In America today, corporations sponsor everything from symphonies to museum exhibits, bowl games to race cars, Olympic athletes to the Public Broadcasting System.

Why shouldn't corporations become sponsors of public education, too?

Pepsi's sponsorship in my district goes way beyond the promotion of soft drinks. In fact, the Pepsi machines in our elementary schools aren't even available for student use. Instead, elementary students have access to machines that sell only bottled water and fruit juices.

What is available to our students, courtesy of Pepsi, is money for quite a few things that might not otherwise be funded. These include:

Career-oriented software for our junior and senior high schools.

A software program for collegebound students that leads them to sources for tuition assistance.

* Discretionary funds that each school's site-based improvement teams will use to achieve the goals they set for their students.

Money for a local educational foundation that provides grants to fund special projects developed, implemented, and evaluated by educators in the district. In fact, Pepsi's contributing enough money to make the foundation a permanent fixture in our community.

Relationships between corporations and school districts are not a new phenomenon. Many districts purchased Apple computers because of the relationship Apple developed with public schools, or were "adopted" by local businesses that wanted to help out.

Our contract with Pepsi is no different.

Our strong economy has buoyed corporations. but public education has not been lifted by the swell. Since the state of public education affects every segment of society, it's only fitting that corporations use some of their profits to support public schools.

It's important to remember that public schools don't exist only for the people who have children in them. They exist for society as a wholeand society as a whole should help maintain their upkeep.

After all, individually and collectively, each of us is a stakeholder in the future of public education. That means corporate America, too.

No

On July 21, 1997, the Madison Metropolitan School District became the first school district in the nation to approve an exclusive marketing deal-worth a potential $1.5 million-with Coca-Cola.

Not only does the contract promote a high-sugar, caffeinated beverage that has virtually no nutritional value to children who are then supposed to sit still in a classroom and learn, it also develops a "partnership," between Coke and the Madison public schools.

This "partnership" hinges on promotions designed to bring the Coke logo into our schools and breed a new generation of brand loyal consumers.

As a high school teacher, I don't want that kind of "partner." The idea that our battle-fatigued and underfunded public schools can be any sort of equal "partner" with a multinational corporation would be laughable, if it weren't so insidious.

In Wisconsin, budget caps are responsible for keeping school budgets so tight that our English department can barely afford to replace books, not to mention buy new ones. and contract negotiations are always a drawn out and humiliating affair.

Other districts are even worse off than ours. Who can forget the school in Georgia that, desperate to win a few bucks in prize money, organized "Coke in Education Day," then suspended a student who unveiled his Pepsi T-shirt during the big photo?

It's tempting to think that a district can take the money and run. but the structure of the contract prevents this. This is not just a contract for "pouring rights"-this is a complex vending/marketing agreement, with the kids as the targeted consumers.

In our district, some of the many promotions that were so "generously" offered include software that flashes the Fruitopia logo as often as nine times in 10 minutes, Coke interns who can earn $5 an hour organizing events that promote Coke in the schools, and the ever-popular Coke Teacher of the Year.

These promotions are at the heart of these exclusive marketing agreements. Beverage companies aren't interested in helping our children by funding their schools. They're interested in buying brand loyalty.