School Commercialism Hurts All Children, Ethnic Minority Group Children Most of All

Journal of Negro Education, The, Fall 2003 by Molnar, Alex

Commercialism in another form-privatization of schools-is having an impact on minority students as well. Evidence is mounting that the growth of the charter school movement may be hastening a return to segregation. While the charter school movement itself is not inherently a form of commercialism, it has become a de facto vehicle for commercial incursion into schools as charter schools are increasingly operated by private, for-profit companies. In their 1999 study of the ethnic composition of charter schools in Arizona, Cobb and Glass found that, "Although Arizona's charter schools are required to admit all students for whom they have room, there is some degree of selectivity." The selectivity was expressed in such practices as requiring charter-initiated parent contracts and the need for parents to provide transportation. Because of such practices, nearly half of the charter schools studied exhibited evidence of substantial ethnic separation. Enrollment in these schools reflected a greater proportion of White students compared with the nearby traditional public schools (Cobb & Glass, 1999). Yet, these findings only begin to scratch the surface. There has not been-and there ought to be-a comprehensive examination of the unique impacts of schoolhouse commercialism on children who live in poverty, and those who belong to ethnic minority groups.

RESISTANCE TO COMMERCIALISM

In the face of the steady rise in schoolhouse commercialism, school districts, teachers, and parents have begun to look critically at corporate-sponsored educational materials and other commercial activities in schools. Parent and community groups large and small have passed resolutions and policy directives on the subject, including the National Parent Teacher Association, the Wisconsin Parent Teacher Association, and the Seattle Citizen's Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools (Citizen's Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools, 2002; National PTA, 1997). Local school boards have begun reining in commercial activities. In Seattle, advertising was severely restricted and in Los Angeles, the school board banned the sale of soft drinks beginning in 2004, citing an epidemic of adolescent obesity in its decision (Hayasaki, 2002). A number of professional organizations have developed voluntary guidelines to help determine which, if any, corporate-sponsored educational materials have merit. These organizations include the National Education Association, the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business, and the various organizations that have adopted the Milwaukee Principles for Corporate Involvement in the Schools (Molnar, 1990). The American Academy of Pediatrics also has published material critical of commercialism in schools that promotes unhealthy nutrition and eating habits (Reid & Gedisman, 2000).

It might be tempting to dismiss concerns about commercialism in the schools as indeed many school officials themselves have when pointing to the benefits their schools receive from relationships that promote commercial entities. In an era of growing concern over youthful cynicism, however, complacency may be hazardous. The man behind the Brooklawn, New Jersey, school's decision to sell naming rights for its gym to the ShopRite supermarket was not unmindful of its impact. Superintendent John Kellmayer acknowledged that selling a school's naming rights represented "the privatization of public responsibility" (Russakoff, 2001, p. A3). he added: "We'll be the first school district to be branded with a corporate logo. You hope children can become sophisticated enough to deal with it" (p. A3).