Chapter 4
Sponsorship and marketing
Sponsorship defined as the negotiated provision of funds, goods or services
to schools in exchange for advertising, publicity or other benefits has
emerged only within the last decade. While it has thus far accounted for
only small proportion of the total funds raised privately by schools,
there has `recently ... been a marked increase in sponsorship activity,
particularly by national and multinational organisations'. [1]
If government funding for schools continues to fall short of what is needed,
it will become an increasingly important funding source, particularly
if recent developments in New South Wales and Victoria are any guide.
For example, radical reforms proposed recently by the Victorian Government
to free schools from bureaucratic controls include the urging of big corporations
to support educational programs through sponsorship. Such proposals, and
the announcement of major corporate sponsorship activity in the NSW Government
school system, School Sports 2000, are sending an unmistakable
signal to schools in those States and Territories that sponsorship has
the imprimatur of government. These initiatives will also encourage other
state school systems to explore sponsorship options.
Most State and Territory Governments have some form of guidelines or
a code of ethics which are supposed to guide schools in relation to sponsorship
arrangements, but they vary considerably in content and effectiveness.
In Victoria, for instance, which has departmental guidelines for the
acceptance of sponsorship, `there are also a huge number of local school
arrangements which are difficult to monitor and assess but would undoubtedly
range widely along the ethical spectrum'. [2]
Decisions about corporate sponsorship are made at the local level, with
school councils empowered to accept gifts, and to accept conditional gifts
with the approval of the department. The department is developing a policy
on advertising in schools. [3]
Western Australia has a draft policy prepared.
In 1991 NSW issued a detailed policy on sponsorship. It requires that
sponsorship arrangements be consistent with the values and goals of NSW
schools and contribute to students' learning. 1996 saw the development
of the School Sport 2000 concept. The School Sport 2000 Foundation
is an initiative of the NSW Department of School Education, the Federation
of Parents and Citizens Associations of NSW, the NSW Teachers Federation
and the Federation of School Community Organisations. Organisations sponsor
programs including the NSW School Sport State and Representative Level
Sporting Programs, the Active Youth Program, the NSW Special Swimming
Scheme and the NSW School Students with Disabilities Program. [4]
The NSW Government also issued policy and procedures for joint funding
of capital works.
- The ACT has a sponsorship policy which requires that:
- an educational rationale underpin the development of sponsorship
- the goods and marketing strategies of the business involved are
appropriate for schools to be associated with
- school boards may negotiate sponsorships up to $10,000. Beyond
that schools need the authority of Executive Director (Schools).
[5]
The Committee received a variety of views on the desirability of sponsorship
and the ways in which schools or school systems might manage sponsorship
proposals. Comments about sponsorship were often placed explicitly in
the context of concerns about the inadequacy of government funds.
As our policy states we believe that in some cases an association
with a sponsor can be educationally valuable. However we do not support
an association with a sponsor which is embarked upon because of Government's
failure to adequately fund public education and which forces schools
to look at other means of raising funds. [6]
The Federation believes that public education should be fully funded
by the Government but recognises that private sponsorship of some school
activities has been beneficial to students. ...It is the Government's
responsibility to ensure adequate funding for the education of children
and sponsorship should not be used as a means of Government escaping
this responsibility. [7]
Teachers and principals impressed upon the Committee that educational
values must remain in the foreground of any discussion about sponsorship.
There were problems raised about schools and sponsorship which tended
to fall into three general areas:
- Time devoted by principals and teachers to entrepreneurial activity
The issue of sponsorship diverting teacher (and student) time away from
educational activities was a common theme in the evidence from teacher
organisations. Accordingly to a national survey of secondary school principals,
[8] in those schools which actively solicit
business support, the main responsibility for this activity lies with
school principals and teachers. In cases where businesses approach schools,
it is again principals and teachers who are the main targets of these
approaches.
The soliciting and negotiating of relationships between schools and businesses
makes demands on the time of principals and teachers. Principals constantly
make judgments about the amount of time they are willing or able to invest
in these ventures, weighing it against the potential educational and financial
benefits that their efforts might realise. The view of some is that the
level of benefits is not justified by the effort expended.
[If] we ask schools to subtract from sponsorship and fundraising
the cost of staff time to do it as this time is an impost against time
to assist student learning. After this subtraction, sponsorship and
fund raising can often be a `negative gain'. [9]
A school principal appearing before the Committee described what he called
a critical lesson in principalship. That was always to put a cost on your
own time, to put a cost on your teachers' time, to put a cost on your
parents' time in terms of, `Is it contributing to the learning of children?'
[10] Principals often utilise not only
time during standard school hours, but many evening or weekend hours pursuing
sponsorship and other kinds of business support for their schools.
- Conflict between educational and commercial interests and values
The second broad area of concerns raised in relation to sponsorship was
that of the potential conflict of values between the commercial interests
of business and the educational interests of schools. The Australian Association
of National Advertisers observed in its submission that:
Despite several years of successful school-business partnership,
there is concern in the community regarding corporate involvement in
schools. Some consider that corporate involvement is anathema to pure
educational objectives, promotes consumerist values in children and
exploits children, parents and teachers.
The business community acknowledges these concerns and ...is committed
to open and ethical participation with the education system in a manner
which is consistent with the values, purpose and goals of public education.
[11]
The evidence before the Committee was that most businesses and industries
have a genuine desire to contribute to improved educational experiences
and outcomes for school students.
Teachers generally regard the involvement of the business community in
schools as welcome provided that educational goals and values remain pre-eminent
in the arrangement and that schools and students are protected from exploitation.
In this regard, the establishment of adequate sponsorship guidelines to
facilitate the proper engagement of Government schools and businesses
is considered crucial by teachers. This is dealt with later in the report.
Teachers were particularly sensitive to the potential for conflict between
the needs and aspirations of schools and sponsors. This is because, in
the teachers' view, there has been a shift from `the relatively benign
arrangements which existed ...in the past' to a time of `considerable
pressure on schools to `sell' themselves to the corporate/business sector
and an increase in education-business partnerships and sponsorship deals'.
[12] It was also claimed that the pressure
to secure private funds interfered with good judgement.
Some schools and parents have shown a willingness to enter into
deals with an apparent scant regard for the performance of the companies,
the nature of their products, their employment and industrial relations
policies, their activities in other countries, their record as polluters,
etc. [13]
In the Committee's view, it is entirely inappropriate for school councils
to have to involve themselves in these kinds of assessments, notwithstanding
that they might feel that they have a duty to do so.
Of more immediate concern are the implications of certain kinds of fundraising
for the protection and wellbeing of students. These include:
When students knock on doors of strangers, `beg' in shopping centres
[for dockets etc], are encouraged to buy unhealthy food, or to spend
money that should be spent on other things. [14]
- Equity implications of sponsorship
The sponsorship issue which was most frequently raised in evidence was
that of equity. Some arrangements which exist between companies and individual
schools bestow a significant advantage upon these schools relative to
other schools in the system. This serves to exacerbate any disparities
which already exist between schools in affluent and poorer suburbs, or
between metropolitan and rural schools. The whole issue of equity arising
from private and commercial funding of schools is dealt with in a separate
chapter of this report.
The Committee accepts that school communities wish to raise modest funds
for their schools. However, from the evidence before the Committee, communities
are becoming increasingly resentful of the extent to which they are required
indeed pressured to raise funds at levels beyond that which they consider
reasonable. The Committee has no wish to hinder the establishment of small-scale,
productive local arrangements between schools and businesses. But recent
initiatives and proposals regarding corporate sponsorship take the matter
into an altogether new league. The Committee is extremely concerned about
a developing reliance on the corporate dollar to meet an increasing proportion
of core school operating costs, as well as the acceptance of dubious sponsorships.
In response to these developments, most group swhile in principle opposed
to a growth of sponsorship in schools have proposed the clear articulation
of guidelines within which that sponsorship should evolve. The Council
of Education Ministers, in 1993, produced a set of sponsorship guidelines.
These are attached at appendix A. These guidelines are not in themselves
sufficient to constitute a formal code of practice, but provide a broad
indication of the kinds of issues that should be articulated in more detail
in States' sponsorship codes.
As stated earlier, there appears to be considerable diversity across
States as to the level of formality and degree of specification with which
education authorities provide guidance to schools. Some state Governments
have formulated explicit policies regarding sponsorship. Others have simply
expressed their expectation that schools will abide by the 1993 Code of
Practice developed by the Ministerial Council.
The Committee received evidence claiming that the national code is inadequate,
largely because in guidelines are too broad. Other criticisms went to
the failure of state Governments even those who have developed their own
sponsorship policies to establish appropriate mechanisms for monitoring
the adherence of schools to either the state policy or the national code.
Given the current attempts to encourage sponsorship of Government schools
it is in the interest of both schools and business for state governments
to have in place comprehensive and clearly articulated policies and codes
of practice about sponsorship and other school/ business financial arrangements.
The development of such codes of practice must involve all relevant parties:
parents, teachers, students, principals, and business organisations. There
is a reasonable sample of codes of practice already in existence or in
draft form upon which such groups could draw.
The Committee acknowledges that there are some excellent examples of
arrangements which are of enormous benefit to individual schools. For
example, in South Australia an agreement between Salisbury High School,
and British Aerospace Australia guarantees an income to the school of
$10,000. [15] Through this venture the
high school integrates workplace learning into the education program `so
that the education offering is more real and is more attractive to young
people and connects them directly to the workplace'. [16]
The Committee believes that this arrangement's main benefit is the development
of the positive relationship between school and the work place and the
prospect for the students of job readiness when they leave school. The
Committee questions the need for such a good relationship to involve funding.
The Sports 2000 initiative developed in NSW also has significant
potential for providing students with additional opportunities and support
beyond the sport and physical education offering available in schools.
Sponsorship, if it is to be sought, should be done on the basis that
it delivers benefits which are additional to the standard school
program, not merely helping to fund the basic curriculum. Moreover, the
benefits of any such sponsorship must be equitably distributed
amongst all schools. The Committee's difficulty with sponsorship arises
when it is something to which schools are compelled to turn in order to
deliver the standard curriculum in the eight Key Learning Areas. Such
provision is the responsibility of governments, not corporate sponsors.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that all Commonwealth,
State and Territory Governments
- develop comprehensive guidelines for sponsorship arrangements
at both school and state levels
- ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to monitor
schools' compliance with the sponsorship guidelines
- ensure that sponsorship assistance is used to provide
additional opportunities for students beyond those provided through
the Eight Key Learning Areas.
Recommendation 10
|
Given the widespread concerns about the severe equity implications of
sponsorship, a frequent proposal placed before the Committee was that
of a centrally-managed education foundation. NSW has recently established
a sponsorship arrangement of this type. In essence, such a foundation
would provide both a focus and opportunity for corporate contributions
to education, and for appropriate recognition by government and the community
at large of those firms who so contribute. A key attraction of such an
approach is that it facilitates a more equitable distribution of corporate
support across all schools, rather than a favoured few, and affords an
appropriate level of protection to schools by virtue of an `arm's length'
relationship between the sponsor and the beneficiary.
The Committee endorsing a centralised approach to ensuring equitable
distribution of funds and notes that it flies in the face of policy which
devolves to the school level the responsibility for securing adequate
funds. Governments are beginning to realise that it is only possible for
an education system to achieve equity goals through a centralised approach.
In the Committee's view this is illustrative of much of the incoherence
that plagues existing policy on devolution of authority to schools.
A state controlled education foundation need not be the repository for
all contributions to schools from firms and businesses. Relatively small
scale, local arrangements should not be affected by such a scheme. However,
the involvement in education of corporations with statewide, national
or international operations should be structured so that any benefits
flowed equitably to schools across the state, or across the nation where
appropriate.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that State and Territory
Governments which seek to supplement government funding to schools
via sponsorship establish a centrally-managed Education Foundation
for the negotiation of sponsorship deals, and for the equitable distribution
across all government schools of any benefits which result.
Recommendation 11
|
Other marketing arrangements involving schools
The Committee had its attention drawn to a range of activities whereby
schools sought to exploit their available resources to generate private
income. The Committee found some strategies particularly disturbing, for
example, the use of school land for commercial purposes.
The whole issue of sponsorship is a very vexed one. In South Australia,as
you are probably aware,the government has allowed school councils to
enter into arrangements with mobile phone carriers to erect mobile phone
towers on school property... Again, we have an issue of the potential
danger to children with this kind of sponsorship... [17]
The Committee understands that the practice of using school land to erect
mobile phone towers occurs in states other than South Australia. The sale
or lease of school land for commercial purposes is regulated in various
ways in the different states. Western Australia has recently released
for public comment guidelines about local area education planning. These
include provision for schools to negotiate, through a formal community
consultation process, the excision of excess land for sale.
Excisions will be considered as part of the planning process by
the group of schools involved... Individual schools will be able to
receive a third of the funds realised from the sale of their surplus
land, with another third going to other schools in the local area and
the remainder to improve schools across the system. This will result
in equitable use of these resources. [18]
The sale of school land may prove problematic in later years if changes
occur in the activities conducted on the land by its new owners, or if
subsequent resale takes place. For example, an analogous situation brought
to the Committee's attention concerned the involvement of a school with
a social club, which was initially thought to be satisfactory:
A moral dilemma has come up in that we did have a sponsorship from
a local social club. They have now gone into the gambling machines and
been so successful that they are expanding into the neighbourhood of
the school with the noise and parking problems that go with expanded
social clubs... [19]
As well as social consequences, there are significant equity considerations
with the sale or rental of school land. The Committee recommends that
the State and Territory Governments reappraise these practices with a
view to enabling any decisions and any benefits to be state wide.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth
Government require the State and Territory Governments to review practices
involving the sale or rental of school land with a view to enabling
any decisions and any benefits to be state wide.
Recommendation 12
|
The Committee reiterates its view that the many existing and potential
difficulties associated with schools' involvement in sponsorship and marketing
only arise because governments do not provide adequate funds in the first
place. A school's fundamental role is to educate students, and this should
not be compromised by the need to engage in commercial market activity
for fundraising purposes in order to deliver a standard education across
the eight key learning areas.
Giving schools the right to borrow
Giving schools the right to borrow has emerged as a possible further
`fundraising' option for schools in Victoria. The Victorian Minister for
Education, Mr Gude, recently indicated thatdepending upon reports of the
Schools of the Third Millennium working groupsthe government may consider
granting schools the right to borrow funds for expansion.
Although the Committee received no direct evidence on this point, it
believes it is appropriate to make some comments about the right to borrow
in the context of similar concerns raised with the Committee about other
aspects of commercial fundraising. Many of the concerns which apply to
other fundraising and sponsorship ventures also apply to the borrowing
of funds. The Committee believes the major risk with granting a right
to borrow is its potential to extend the divide between bigger schools
in wealthier areas and smaller schools, rural schools or schools in disadvantaged
suburbs. While there may be benefits in such an approach, the Committee
believes it is symptomatic of the erosion of government commitment to
the provision of free education previously discussed in Chapter 2. Unless
governments are prepared to step in with additional resources for those
schools which cannot borrow sufficient funds, small and disadvantaged
schools are likely to fall further behind in terms of resources, with
all the equity and quality of education implications that entails.
The Committee is also concerned about the legal and financial implications
of one school council entering into a contract to borrow funds, leaving
subsequent school councils to deal with the debt. The Committee believes
the Commonwealth Government should closely monitor the Schools of the
Third Millennium process in Victoria and involve itself in any subsequent
discussions about removing restrictions on schools' ability to borrow
funds.
Footnotes
[1] Vardon, Cheryl (Director General, Education
Dept of WA). Foreword of Interim Sponsorship and Promotion Policy 1997
[2] Submission no 21, vol 1, p 156 (Australian
Education Union (AEU))
[3] Communication from Mr J Livi, Department
of Education Legal Services Unit, 28 July 1996
[4] Submission no 49, vol 4, pp 69-80 (NSW Government)
[5] Submission no 58, vol 4, pp196-207 (ACT
Government)
[6] Submission no 33, vol 2, p 79 (South Australian
Association of School Parents Clubs)
[7] Submission no 37, vol 2, p 173 (Victorian
Federation of State School Parents Clubs)
[8] Submission no 46, vol 3, pp 138206 (Mr Jeremy
Moon and Mr Richard Sochaski). Includes preliminary analysis of a sample
of 490 schools.
[9] Submission no 1, vol 1, p 4 (Mr Spinks,
The Sheffield School)
[10] Transcript of evidence, Hobart,
2 September 1996, p 210 (Mr Spinks, The Sheffield School)
[11] Submission no 40, vol 3, p 108 (Australian
Association of National Advertisers)
[12] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 29 (SA Institute
of Teachers (SAIT))
[13] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 27 (SAIT)
[14] Submission no 21, vol 1, p 153 (Australian
Education Union (AEU))
[15] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 31 (SAIT)
[16] Transcript of evidence, Adelaide,
31 January 1997, p 555 (Mr Turner, Salisbury High School)
[17] Transcript of evidence, Adelaide,
31 January 1997, p 583 (Ms Pickles, MLC SA)
[18] Media statement, Western Australian Government,
28 May 1997
[19] Transcript of evidence, Melbourne,
3 September 1996, p 267 (Mr Burns, Footscray Primary School Council)