This article argues that administrators normally do a serious wrong when they contract with companies that market to children within schools. This is because in doing so, they violate the anti-commercial principle, which, in turn, is justified by the obligation schools have to facilitate the autonomy of their students. The author focuses particularly on Channel One but argues that numerous other standard features of school life are similarly problematic in the light of the values that justify the anti-commercial principle.
Anderson, R. E., Crespo, C. J., Bartlett, S. J., Cheskin, L. J., & Pratt, M. (1998). Relationship of physical activity and television watching with body weight and level of fatness among children: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 938-942.
2.
Apple, M. (2000). Educating the “right” way. London: Routledge Falmer.
3.
Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
Brighouse, H. (2002). What rights(if any) do children have? In D. Archard & C. MacLeod (Eds.), The moral and political status of children (pp. 31-52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Brighouse, H. (2003). How should children be heard?Arizona Law Review, 45(3), pp. 691-711.
6.
Brighouse, H. (in press). Faith schools in the UK: An unenthusiastic defence of a slightly reformed status quo. In Roy Gardner (Ed.), Faith schools: Consensus or conflict?London: Routledge Falmer.
7.
Burtt, S. (1994). Religious parents, secular schools. Review of Politics, 56, 51-70.
8.
Galston, W. (1995). Two concepts of liberalism. Ethics, 105, 516-534.
9.
Greenberg, B. S., & Brand, J. E. (1993). Channel One: But what about the advertising?Educational Leadership, 51(4), 56-58.
10.
Hoynes, W. (1997, May/June). News for a captive audience: An analysis of Channel One Extra! Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/extra/9705/ch1-hoynes.html
11.
Hoynes, W. (1998). News for a teen market: The lessons of Channel One. Journal of Curriculum Supervision, 13, 339-356.
12.
Knupfer, N. N., & Hayes, P. (1994). The effects of Channel One broadcasts on students’ knowledge of current events. In A. De Vaney (Ed.), Watching Channel One: The convergence of students, technology, and private business (pp.42-60). Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
Linn, S. (2004). Consuming kids: The hostile takeover of childhood. New York: New Press.
14.
MacLeod, C. (2003). Agency, goodness, and endorsement: Why we can’t be forced to flourish. Imprints, 7(4), 131-159.
15.
McCawley, I. (2001, May 31). Misspent youth. Marketing Week, pp. 26-28.
16.
O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of television in the construction of consumer reality. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 278-294.
17.
Robinson, T. N. (1999). Reducing children’s television viewing to prevent obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1561-1567.
18.
Sawicky, M., & Molnar, A. (1998). The hidden costs of Channel One: Estimates for the 50 states. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Documents/cace-98-02/CACE-98-02.htm
19.
Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American. New York: Harper Perennial.
20.
Schor, J. (2004). Born to buy. New York: Scribner.
21.
Schrag, F. (1998). Diversity, schooling, and the liberal state. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 17, 29-46.
22.
Shrum, L. J., O’Guinn, T., Serenick, R. J., & Faber, R. J. (1991). Processes and effects in the construction of normative consumer beliefs: The role of television. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (18, pp. 755-763). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
23.
Swift, A. (2003). How not to be a hypocrite: School choice for the morally perplexed. London: Routledge Falmer.
