After reading Nadya Labi's essay, "Classrooms for Sale", my opinion on the matter has not changed. It is not a strong opinion in support or opposition of advertisement in the classroom but rather one of a sort of acceptance to the relationship of supply and demand between schools and marketing brands; marketing brands need space for advertisement and schools need money.
Instead of focusing on my opinion on the matter of classroom advertisment, here's some of Labi's stategies in presenting her argument:
I think it is so effective in setting the tone to begin an essay about schools with a problem. She starts by stating "Solve this problem:"(p.123). Point blank. Followed by multiple choice answers. It is also very effective to use a specific school in the example, making the issue discussed more malleable and real for the reader.
I also liked how she transitioned between paragraphs six and seven,"'Advertisers realize that schools are the perfect place to develop new markets. Kids can't switch the channel'[now to para.7] That's literally true in the case of ZapMe! Corp., which gives schools a free ride on the information superhighway[...]"(p.125). She then goes on to explain how this company provides the computers with the catch that the students have to use them a minimum of four hours a day; four hours in which a 2'' x 4'' billboard of rotating ads is on the screen.
The last strategy used which I enjoyed is found in the last sentence. Sarcasm-yes. Labi takes school advertisment to the assumed extreme that, in the future, schools will be so indoctrinated with advertising that the advertisers' names will become the schools'; much like Stanford University, though not with the same positive connotation. She tries to somehow invoke a fear of advertising by using two predominant (and not the healthiest) companies-McDonalds and Coke.
Though I found the strategies in this essay to be well done, I think that the essay wold have been more effective, if in it, Labi had donemore to address the supporting side of school advertising. Instead, she wrote an essay with the stipulation that all school advertising is bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Labi does use some very effective tools in convincing people that the class room should not be for sale just for the reason that it has horrible effects on students well being. Plus if her data is correct these schools really aren't getting much out of the deal when it comes to money. Some of these corporations are signing these schools up for 10 year contracts. They were only going to get 8 million dollars for that contract. That's crazy. I would think it would be way more.
ReplyDeleteThe way you phrase things... sheesh, they sound so smooth! I see your point too. It was fairly one sided (fairly) (fairly) (fairly). I really like that word today. Fairly. Hm. Anyways, I think that if people can't supply and corps can (heh, if I put an "e" on corps it means dead bodies can... heh.), then let them. You are right. Supply demand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Alicia. Personally, I think that school advertising is a necessary evil. Our schools reap large benefit from it, but American children would be so much better if we could liberate ourselves from it. Ultimately though, I don't think our education system is at a point where it could/should sever its ties from the french fry grease covered fingers of the McDonald's corp. I know for a fact that when states go through budget crises, the education is one of the first things to go, and though this is sad, too many law making adults don't see the need to keep lower level education such as elementary school from making cuts. Luckily, companies are always ready to come by and pull kids up by their bootstraps. (or their wallets.) As I said, a necessary evil.
ReplyDelete