outside the (toy) box

In preparation for my upcoming meeting with Thing 1’s preschool about Scholastic, I started sniffing out additional information.  I couldn’t find nearly as much as I would like on preschool commercialism, but then I was magically referred to Rebekah Cohen and voila, paydirt!  Cohen has a Master’s in Child Development from Tufts University (where she specialized in children and media) and formerly worked as a research assistant with Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood.  Her Master’s research focused on (drumroll) commercialism in preschools.  She now lives and works in San Francisco.  Cohen was gracious enough to let me interview her a few days ago.  Her insights follow:

So, okay, tell us, how bad is commercialism in preschool?

It’s bad, but it could definitely be worse. All of the preschools I visited her commercialized in some way, which is not terribly surprising given the media culture targeted towards 3-5 year old age group. Scholastic was probably the most prevalent brand in the classroom.  I found several books whose characters are featured on television shows and commercial products, including Clifford and the Magic School Bus Series.  Both of which have obvious educational value, although this has been compromised by Scholastic’s cross-marketing, turning the characters into vehicles to sell products and generate profit, rather than purely teach.  There are also books published by Scholastic that profess instruction in math, but used branded foods (e.g., The Gummy Bear Counting Book and Cheerios Counting Book).

Disney and Nickelodeon were not far behind in terms of their presence in the classroom.  I visited one preschool in a wealthy neighborhood and was greeted at the entrance by a life-sized Cinderella DVD advertisement.  This school also had a dramatic play station strewn with branded items from Disney Princess Teapots to Fischer Price’s Oreo Matchin’ Gameto Hello Kitty Highchairs.  Children’s dramatic play was saturated in commercialism.  I also found “good merit” stickers branded with Dora and The Wiggles.  Classrooms were also making an effort to “keep up with the times” and offer computer activities featuring licensed characters, Disney films, and Sesame Workshop.  There were also stuffed animals from It’s a Bugs Life and Barney.

Just as important as what was in the classroom was what children were bringing into the classroom.  Dora the Explorer, Go Diego Go, SpongeBob, and other well-known characters were displayed on children’s back packs, blankets, umbrellas, and toys. This is some indication of the commercial environment children are exposed to in the home, further exemplifying the importance of decreasing the presence of brands in the classroom.

What did you find most disconcerting during your research?

It was all pretty disturbing, although if I wasn’t specifically looking for it, I’m not sure how bothered I would have been.  That’s the most disconcerting thing of all.  At first glance, these products, books, and materials are all seemingly innocuous tools for teaching and playing.  It’s not surprising, then, that most of the teachers I interviewed were not tuned in to the commercialism right in front of them.  One teacher was wearing a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt, but was unable to see her own sweatshirt as an example of commercialism.  Some of the teachers believed that the brands assisted them in conveying information that the children would otherwise not find interesting.  For example, using curriculum featuring Gummy Bears or Froot Loops or Barney to teach numbers of letters.

I find it sad that some children embrace learning only when incentives are involved.  I find it even more disturbing that some teachers not only accept this method, but endorse it.

What do you think about Scholastic books? Am I crazy to be concerned?

On one hand, their role as a massive educational publisher providing low cost books to children, schools, and families is laudable.  They have the capacity to reach children from all socioeconomic backgrounds.  And, to some extent, I think they’ve succeeded at doing this. On the other hand, the very position that allows Scholastic to wear a halo, also places them in an ethically questionable position as a business.  Sadly, I think Scholastic has used the former (halo) to achieve the latter (profit), which quickly raises questions about their products’ educational value.  I find it hard to feel warm thoughts toward a company that has corporate sponsored curricula (on their website, look!), produces books such as The Oreo Cookie Counting Book, Skittles Riddles Math, The M& Ms Addition Book, etc., and surreptitiously includes products in their book order forms from Disney and Nickelodeon, including SpongeBob figurines, cards, stickers and Rugrats: The Movie promotions.

I think if more people knew about Scholastic’s real role in in-school marketing, more people would be raising hell. You aren’t crazy, you’re informed!

What other common commercial elements did you see?

Although I didn’t see them in the classrooms I visited, I learned about several educational curricula produced by Nickelodeon.  Pizza Hut has a Book IT! Program for Preschoolers, and Campbell’s offers Box Tops for Education opportunities for this age groups.  Disney’s website also offers downloadable educational materials.

There is a lot out there and it isn’t too hard to find. Scholastic has an in-school marketing page that is worth checking out.  Go to any of these companies’ websites and see for yourself.

What can you say that will cheer me up?

As of now, we have more control at the preschool level than at the rest of the education system. Now is as good a time as any for an intervention.