Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

How about using corporate sponsors to fix the schools?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26798points) July 25th, 2010

People can see many schools failing, either the curriculum, the building itself, or it has no money. Many people seem to hate the ideal of attaching the money to the student by way of vouchers and having all schools go voucher so how about another fix; corporate sponsored schools? ACME corporation and sponsor a school and the kids will have a uniform with a small ACME Corp. logo on it, there will be ACME posters adorning the hall, lunch trays, bleachers, etc. and in return the school gets new books, new desks, a full and functioning computer and science lab, free school sports participation for the students etc. So why not let business product place in the schools if in the end the kids get a better education with less money and teachers who don’t have to keep coming out of their own pockets for supplies or go begging to the state like a horde of Bedouins or serfs for handouts?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

perspicacious's avatar

My system already does, as do many. There are quite a few foundations set up to support to help support out schools; corporate donations are huge here.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

The problem would be that Pepsi school would probably be prevented from teaching the kids that Pepsi is bad for you.

YARNLADY's avatar

School with advertising all over the hallways and the corporate sponsor in charge of what is taught would not be a good idea.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@YARNLADY I never said they get to direct curriculem just pay for everything to have their name enblazen across the school.

YARNLADY's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central What you want and what you get are two different things. Once you start taking their money, they own you. Businesses are not in the habit of giving money away for free.

ragingloli's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central
The sponsoring Corp. is not dependent on pupils walking around with little stickers for advertising, but the school is dependent on the money, which means the Corp. sits at the longer lever, and they will use it.
First it will be something small, like “stop teaching that soft drinks are bad for your health”.
Then the demands will grow into things like “start teaching that unions are bad.” and “start teaching that any government regulation is bad for the economy” and “capitalism is pure good, socialism is pure evil”, and “workers’ rights are evil and should be abolished”.
And each of those would be backed up by a threat along the lines of “teach that, or you can forget the money”, and since the school is dependent on the money, they have you by the balls.

john65pennington's avatar

You have a great idea. there is only one problem…........greed. corporations are not going to invest their money into something that is not going to give them a money return. a good example are the casinos in Las Vegas. many casinos are owned by big corporations for just one purpose…..money and greed.

Like i said, you have a great idea. if the corporations were that intersted in education, our schools would not be facing the conditions you described in your question.

jrpowell's avatar

Or we could trim 10% from the Pentagon and have the best schools in the world.

ragingloli's avatar

Also, I do not understand how someone could even suggest corporate sponsorship for schools, after seeing what such an involvement has already done to politics, where the vast majority of politicians are bought puppets for corporations.
Your country is already on the verge of becoming already is a Corporatocracy, and you want to bring them into the schools, too?

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@ragingloli To be fair, if we go any more to the right economically, it’ll be the only way – forget about quality, we’ll just be trying to give parents a break for a few hours every day.

mammal's avatar

a terrible idea, in Cuba they have zero corporate advertising anywhere and a very decent education system, without the sporadic killing sprees that seem to plague American schools and they operate on a shoestring budget, so if they can do it there is actually no excuse as to why the richest country in the world are struggling to educate their children.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@mammal Yeah, ok, but instead of teens shooting up the schools, the government kills everyone. Besides, no amount of nice desks makes up for a teacher not being able to speak their mind to the kids and engage them in an intellectual discussion of ideas and debate.

mammal's avatar

@papayalily don’t forget the American government kills thousands of people every year, mainly abroad, but quite a few are homegrown executions from what i gather from the news. or is that propaganda too?

filmfann's avatar

Would companies want to be associated with really bad schools?
Would this mean they would only help schools that don’t need their help as much?
Would this increase the divide between the haves and have nots?

“Where did you go to High School?”
“Starbucks High. Go Macchiatos!”
“Lucky you. I went to Massengill High. Go Douches!”

HungryGuy's avatar

@filmfann – Exactly! Getting corporations involved would only make the divide between the rich and the poor even worse.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think Wichita was trying that in the 90’s. Not sure how it went or if they’re still doing it.

Basically, the schools focus on whatever the supporting business wants them to focus on, in order to have future recruits primed and ready for working in their corporation.

@filmfann HA HA!!! Go Douches!! : ) For just a sec I wanted to say, THAT’S NOT MY NAME!!! But only for a sec….

tranquilsea's avatar

The trend here is for more and more corporate sponsorship of schools. Our province is big on P3s. They end up costing the tax payer more than if the government just funded the whole thing.

We need to keep corporations out of schools. Accepting money from them is the first step in them having a greater say in what happens in that school. IMHO

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@tranquilsea Where do you live, and how does it end up costing the taxpayer more?

tranquilsea's avatar

@papayalily The rates our provincial government can (and does) borrow money at is significantly lower than the rates they get by borrowing through a P3 model. On the interest alone they would be able to build more schools through public financing than they would through a P3 model.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

This is educational suicide. The corporatocracy will create perfect consumers but useless citizens.
It will corrupt education to serve the corporation’s needs. I agree with so many of you who expressed this more completely than I did.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ragingloli ”First it will be something small, like “stop teaching that soft drinks are bad for your health”.
Then the demands will grow into things like “start teaching that unions are bad.” and “start teaching that any government regulation is bad for the economy” and “capitalism is pure good, socialism is pure evil”, and “workers’ rights are evil and should be abolished”.
And each of those would be backed up by a threat along the lines of “teach that, or you can forget the money”, and since the school is dependent on the money, they have you by the balls. And the government is not interfering now? The government tell schools they can’t teach Creationism, they must teach about Gay unions, they have to pass out condoms in health class, and such not that they do all that was just mentioned but they do dictate. Those schools or states that don’t comply lose federal funding. The so-called blackmail is already going on just with a stingy government that gives little for their coercion.

”Also, I do not understand how someone could even suggest corporate sponsorship for schools,” Easy, because the government can’t get it right and don’t want to spend the money to get the job done and done right. They way it has been going is broken and in need of something new. I would ask how could anyone think of keeping the current broken system?

@johnpowell ”Or we could trim 10% from the Pentagon and have the best schools in the world.” Good luck with that one. If we had invested 20% of the cash we shoveled down a Middle Eastern sand alligator for most of the last decade we could have the best in the world, no schools closing and some of the best paid teachers. Our government cares more to propping up puppet governments and paper leaders than funding the next generation that will be looked upon to the house of card from falling in on itself.

@mammal ”in Cuba they have zero corporate advertising anywhere and a very decent education system, without the sporadic killing sprees that seem to plague American schools and they operate on a shoestring budget, so if they can do it there is actually no excuse as to why the richest country in the world are struggling to educate their children.” OK, in Cuba maybe the government don’t have the money to invest but I bet pound for pound they spend more than the US by percentage. And there are many 3rd world nations that produce smarter kids, either we in the US are not spending the money or just have kids genetically dispositioned to be dumber no matter how fany or technical the school is.

@filmfann ”Would companies want to be associated with really bad schools?” I think weak schools will get better. If sponsorship of a weak school was cheaper to sponsor Joe Blow corporation will sink whatever money into it to make it a success, if for nothing more than their own corporate egos; so they can say “Look at what we done? And if we can do that for them think of what we can do for you?”.

ragingloli's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central
Teaching Creationism and ID is a violation of the constitution and also factually a load of bollocks.
As is comparing requiring the teaching of factual reality and tolerance for the benefit of all, to teaching lies for financial benefits of a few and the systematical deconstruction of societal achievements.
Would you like the English Royal Family requiring american schools to teach that the independence war was an act of High Treason and that America is a country of traitors?

Easy, because the government can’t get it right and don’t want to spend the money to get the job done and done right.
Funny then that all the countries at the top of the educational rating list all have government controlled public education systems.
It certainly is a lie that government in general leads to bad education. Other countries can do it, but you can not? Maybe americans are more incompetent. :)

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ragingloli “Other countries can do it, but you can not? Maybe americans are more incompetent. :)” As I said to @mammalAnd there are many 3rd world nations that produce smarter kids, either we in the US are not spending the money or just have kids genetically dispositioned to be dumber no matter how fany or technical the school is.” It has to be something, schools here under the government’s watch is not doing well at all. If it is not the money it has to be the class work or the teachers or the kids are just plain video playing, sexing Forest Gumps.

mattbrowne's avatar

Very bad idea. Plenty of conflict of interest issues.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I really think that the problem with education here is the parents and the ever present and overwhelming threat of lawsuits.

Ron_C's avatar

How about keeping corporate sponsors out of schools? They already have concessions for coke and pepsi. I can’t believe they allow soda vendors in school at all.

We are already dumbing down the education of our kids, do you want to put them under pressure to consume more than they already do.

I don’t mind a lot of local companies sponsoring a play or football game. I don’t want to rename my school Walmart High School of Elk County. When that happens, we all loose.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther