outside the (toy) box

Well, we had the big meeting yesterday and it went fairly well.  Because the teachers in the preschool have Master’s degrees in child development or education and the director has an EDD, I made the mistake of going in ready to talk about solutions/alternatives, but presumed I didn’t really need to “teach” why this is a problem. In fact, I specifically avoided professor mode, since I only study media – they are the experts on children.  They have taught me a great deal since I’ve known them, if I could have one live with us for insight and consultations, I would!  Having said that, I am so caught up in my frustration with commercialization and pay such close attention to others doing great work on this, that I erroneously assumed this was on everyone’s radar/hit list.  So, I wish I had given a 20 minute presentation, answered questions, and then moved to strategies for coping, but I didn’t.  No use crying over spilled milk.

Instead, we had a meandering conversation about commercialism and it’s infiltration into new spaces and the challenge of finding other low cost books.  It’s easy for me, a parent who can afford to buy books to say “throw them out, I don’t need their damn discount,” but like the teachers, I want all kids to have access to books, and there are quality books in there (even if 1 out of 4 “books” is an advertisement).  

The conundrum is this — the books are cheap because that is not how Scholastic makes money. Scholastic makes money by selling advertisers access to kids, (and by using their own signature characters to sell toys, DVDs, etc.).  They work like a newspaper.  The New York Times doesn’t make money on subscriptions — they make money by having sufficiently high circulation statistics among the most desirable demographic groups (Those with disposable income. You.) to attract advertisers who want access to those eyeballs.  

So, then the question is - is it ethically justifiable for child advocates (e.g., teachers, administrators) to effectively sell access to a group of students (without parental permission) — and for so little? 

On the one hand, instilling a love of reading trumps this modest advertising exposure.  On the other hand, can’t a love of reading be instilled in other ways?  Isn’t this the very heart of early childhood education?  It isn’t an all or none proposition in which no Scholastic = no books = no reading.  Not even close. 

At this point it’s incumbent on me to help prompt this preschool to find a new way to reinforce the preliteracy work that they are doing at school in the children’s homes, the teachers are overworked already.  But, it doesn’t seem to me that this should be my job.  Reading flourishes in my house.  I’m not worried about my kid in this way in the slightest.  But, those of us “in the know” need to take this on because until this issue is actually on the radar/hit list of educators — they won’t.  

For what it’s worth, this issue is worthy of being on the radar. Schor shows that there is a causal relationship (not just a correlation) between involvement in consumer culture and low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, strained parental relationships, psychosomatic illnesses, etc. etc. in children. This is particularly complex when we are talking about young children.  So, it isn’t just unseemly to have advertisers targeting kids (via teachers no less), it’s detrimental to their well-being. 

Any one element seems so innocuous (SpongeBob, Transformers, Barbie) that it’s fairly challenging to see the structural circumstances that have permitted unprecedented access to young children on one hand, and the very serious consequences of a consumerist orientation on the other. 

And, parents alone are ill-equipped to really protect their children — not only is awareness fairly low, but even for concerned parents, advertising now extends into so many spaces that it’s seemingly inescapable — schools, churches, voluntary organizations, and even peer networks (yep, there are viral marketing agencies that actually hire kids to talk about products/demonstrate them in their own homes — at sleepovers, at parties, etc.).  Of course we can’t raise kids in isolation chambers and wouldn’t want to — but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to at least have these forces banned in educational settings.

(soap box away now)

So, the steps we agreed on are:

1. The director will send a letter to Scholastic expressing the concern of parents over the marketing embedded in the circulars and asking them to refocus their attentions.
2. I will give a presentation at an advisory board meeting in conjunction with someone from a local advocacy organization, to begin a dialogue.
3. The circulars will be distributed with a letter attached that explicitly states that the school is aware that there is marketing in the circulars and that they do not endorse these products, but highly recommend books X,Y, Z.
4. The school will buy the books I recommended on this issue and place them in the parent library for those parents who do want more information.
5. I will continue to work find an alternative source for low cost books.

 Steps in the right direction.

Speaking of books and steps in the right direction, I’d best step away from the computer and get back to working on my own (completely unrelated) research or I’m going to be fired.  That would suck.