Businesses and schools frequently interact in a variety of spheres. Much of the literature written during the 1980s on school-business interaction is positive and suggests that schools benefit from a corporate presence. More recently, the literature on school-business interaction has become critical and suggests that businesses sometimes exploit schools in these relationships. This study enriches this debate by examining the views of public school principals in Pennsylvania with regard to the involvement of corporations in public schools in the following spheres: sponsored events, exclusive agreements, incentive programs, marketing in school, sponsored educational materials, and direct sales and fund-raising. The findings suggest that school principals in Pennsylvania are largely ambivalent or slightly positive about commercial involvement: a perception that leaves both supporters and critics of commercial involvement opportunities to inform and persuade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ascher, C. (1988). Urban school-community alliances: Trends and issues, No. 10. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
2.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3.
Ballen, Casey, J. , & de Kanter, A. (1998). The corporate imperative: Results and benefits of business involvement in education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
4.
Barber, B. R. (1993). America skips school. Harper’s, 287(1722), 39-46.
5.
Bowman, R. , & Dawson-Jackson, C. (1994). Development of a business-education partnership to reform secondary education. Education, 114(3), 464-470.
6.
Boyles, D. (1998). American education and corporations: The free market goes to school. New York: Garland.
7.
Caswell, H. , & Campbell, D. (1935). Curriculum development. New York: American Book.
8.
Chion-Kenney, L. (1989). America’s leaders speak out on business-education partnerships: Proceedings and recommendations from the Compact Institute/Business Leadership Forum. Washington, DC: Institute fro Educational Leadership.
9.
Cibulka, J. (1999). Ideological lenses for interpreting political and economic changes affecting schooling. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration, 2nd edition (pp. 163-182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Consumers Union . (1995). Captive kids: A report on commercial pressures on kids at school. Yonkers, NY: Author.
11.
Danzberger, J. , & Gruskin, S. (1993). Project abstracts: Educational Partnerships Program. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
12.
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Fowler, F. (1999). Curiouser and curiouser: New concepts in the rapidly changing landscape of educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 594-613.
15.
Gelberg, D. (1997). The “business” of reforming American schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16.
General Accounting Office . (2000). Commercial activities in schools (GAO/HEHS-00-156). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
17.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). Schools for sale: Public education, corporate culture, and the citizen-consumer. Educational Forum, 63(2), 140-149.
18.
Greenwood, V. (1995, April). Commercialism in the classroom: The controversial partnership of education and business. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
19.
Hall, R. F. (1993). Business-education partnerships: Developing a collaborative relationship with business and community. Macomb: Western Illinois University.
20.
Hardy, L. (1999). The lure of school marketing. American School Board Journal [Online]. Available: http://www.asbj.com/199910/1099coverstory.html
21.
Kaplan, G. R. (1996). Profits r us: Notes on the commercialization of America’s schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), K1-K12.
22.
Karpatkin, R. , & Holmes, A. (1995, September). Making schools ad-free zones. Educational Leadership, 1995, 53(1), 72-76.
23.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
24.
Knight Abowitz, K. (2000). Democratic communities and business/education “partnerships” in secondary education. Urban Review, 34(4), 313-342.
25.
Knight-Abowitz, K. (1999). American education and corporations (book review). Educational Studies, 30(2), 168-174.
26.
Kohn, A. (1995, October). Save our schools. School Administrator, 52(9), 36-36.
27.
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.”Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
Kozol, J. (1992). Whittle and the privateers: Corporate raid on education. Nation, 255(8), 272-275.
29.
Krathwohl, D. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman.
30.
Lankard, B. (1995). Business/education partnerships (ERIC Digest No. 156). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
31.
Mann, D. (1987). Business involvement and public school improvement, Part I. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 123-127.
32.
Martin, R. L. (1985). Business and education: Partners for the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
33.
Mickelson, R. A. (1999). International business machinations: A case study of corporate involvement in local educational reform. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 476-512.
34.
Molnar, A. (1995). Schooled for profit. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 70-71.
35.
Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America’s schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
36.
Molnar, A. (1999). Cashing in on kids: The second annual report on trends in schoolhouse commercialism. Milwaukee, WI: Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education.
37.
Murphy, J. (1999). New consumerism: Evolving market dynamics in the institutional dimension of schooling. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration, 2nd edition (405-419). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics . (1999). Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education: School year 1996-1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
39.
National Education Association . (1996). Status of the American public school teacher. Washington, DC: Author.
40.
Pennsylvania Department of Education . (1999). Status report on education in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
41.
Rebore, R. (2001). The ethics of educational leadership. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall.
42.
Sawicky, M., & Molnar, A. (1998). The hidden costs of Channel One [Online]. Available: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CACE/documents/hidden_costs2.html
43.
Soter, T. (1993, September). A business plan for education. Management Review, 10-16.
44.
Timpane, M. , & McNeill, L. M. (1991). Business impact on education and child development reform: A study prepared for the Committee for Economic Development. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
45.
Tushnet, N. C. (1993). A guide to developing educational partnerships. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
46.
Warner, C. , & Curry, M. (1997). Everybody’s house—The schoolhouse: Best techniques for connecting home, school, and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47.
Wirt, F. M. , & Kirst, M. W. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
