Faced with financial cutbacks, a deteriorating plant, and ageing audio-video equipment, the school boards as well as the teachers have been looking at alternative ways of getting the goods.
So, schools have been using print and other materials sponsored by Tampax, Jonhson and Johnson, the Dairy Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Forestry Association, the Mining Industry.
In Ontario, Apple Canada and McDonald's Canada worked together and equipped a school for severely handicapped children with computers and software. Other companies, such as Yamaha have donated musical instruments, and as Ottawa's Board of Education's Elaine Garfinkel pointed out, "children in the community have benefited from this association and will continue to benefit." (as quoted in "Classroom Commercials" by Michelle Hibler. Canadian Consumer, Vol.21, No. 9 and 10, p.8)
The same article also points at the more dangerous and insidious practices of crass commercialism occurring in the United States where some companies have "adopted" whole schools, and where Chris Whittle of Whittle Communications, (50% owned by the communications giant Time-Warner) pipes via his Channel One ten minutes of news and two minutes of advertising into the classrooms of participating schools. His commercials feature mainly fast foods, candy bars and costly footwear. (Hibler)
Many educators were not amused by this, and even a corporate giant as McDonald's stated that "With our schools failing our students in math and science and history and English and literature, do we want the classroom to become the new competitive battleground for our companies?" (Hibler)
Most of us would have a clear answer to this: No way! On the other hand, with pitiful budgets and the ever increasing cost of commercially produced materials, alternative ways of financing have to be carefully looked at, and corporate sponsorship is one way.
The question is are we as teachers going to stick our heads into the sand, are we going to stay in our ivory towers, or are we going to get involved in the decisions making process and see under what circumstances and with what guidelines we are willing the accept some form of corporate sponsorship in our schools.
The pilot programme, in which I was involved at Western Laval High School was "free of charge", as far as dollars and cents are concerned, but students, teachers, administrators, and parents put in a lot of their time to make it feasible. These people were going to make sure that Lumac (then the corporation behind YNN) would deliver a product that would be worthwhile.
There was no lack of consultation. The program was shown to school committees, school councils, parents, commissioners, principals, teachers, and directorate. It was piloted in three of our high schools. I was one of the teachers involved in the pilot. Changes in the presentation format were quickly made as a result of our suggestions. My students and I were most impressed by this.
YNN had nothing to do with Whittle (the Whittle pointed out at the beginning). To the contrary, the company was well aware of the negative publicity Whittle was getting in educational circles in the States. It should be pointed out here that a YNN advisory board was to be set up, made up media specialists from universities, schools, and other fields, while the Laurenval "Media Literacy Committee" would have had as one of its functions, to establish liaison with the YNN advisory board. At all costs did we want to prevent a Channel One type of program in our classrooms.
YNN never got any further than producing the pilot with input from teachers and students. At the end of each program a lengthy questionnaire had to be filled by students and teachers.
It would be terribly naive to assume that children are not going to be influenced by commercials in the classroom. Advertisers know that children today have lots of spending money. Of course, manufacturers are vying for their attention. If we think that advertising, under no circumstances should take place in the classroom, then we should clearly say so, and apply it to all commercial activities students are subjected to in the classroom.
The other side of the coins is that students need to be motivated to watch the news and read the newspaper. During the pilot YNN did just that. Students became much more aware of what "Meech" was all about and became interested in reading more about it. They also liked the student-produced programs and were most impressed by their peer's professionalism. The advertising can be effectively used to make our students better consumers. After all they have to learn to discriminate. Some advertisements are valid, others are not. As educators we have to teach them to become critical. What better time then right after the commercial?
Of course, then and now, the format of the YNN programming is going to be crucial. In 1992, programming would have been determined by an advisory board to which educators would have had input. The contract between YNN and the school boards also contained very specific guidelines as to which products can and cannot be advertised. I hope that similar guidelines are in place now.
At the time some stated that although students were conditioned at home to see commercials for what they were.I argued then that parents do not often discuss TV with their children and certainly not the commercials.
At the time teachers would have had some control over how YNN programs were to be viewed by their students. Except for the daily news, a schedule would have been provided on "back grounders" so teachers would have known in advance what to expect. The programmes could be taped and used at a later date with not copyright violations. Used properly, those YNN programs could have been highly educational.
Then and now people are upset by the amount of time student will waste watching YNN. I cannot see how 12 minutes of teaching time every seven days can be such a horrible thing. Much larger amounts of time are wasted in our classes with other, often non pedagogical things. I don't have to make a list, and I bet that students waste more than 12 minutes just looking out of the windows because they're bored.
The arguments have not changed much.We can use the political argument. Corporations in Canada do not pay their fair share of taxes. If they did, there would be sufficient money for education and we wouldn't need corporate advertising to finance what we feel we need. Fair enough an argument. But we all know that in the present political climate, this is not going to change soon. In our frustration do we cut off our nose to spite our face?
- Do we need TV monitors and cameras in our schools at all? Do we just continue to use books, pen and paper, overhead projectors and blackboard, while our students watch hours of TV at home, without the benefit of becoming Media literate?
- Do we accept advertising as an integral part of out society? Do we see our schools a some kind of holy shrine from which advertising is banned?
- Do we have solid moral and educational evidence to demonstrate that advertising in our schools is harmful to our students?
- Do we trust YNN to deliver a fair product that will make our task in the school easier and will benefit our students?
Try and answer these questions, then come to some kind of conclusion.
(For various reasons, financial as well as political, YNN never got off the ground in the early nineties)
Originally published in the PAPT - Sentinel, February 1992, vol.8, nr.1
