Should corporate sponsorship be encouraged in Public schools in Canada?
The many controversial points brought up within debates similar to that of corporate sponsorships caught my attention and led me to creating this debate. Is Corporate sponsorship something positive, or negative? Should the government be the only source of funding within public schools? Whats your opinion? Share your thoughts.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Yes, but.... there would need to be restrictions.
This might either be a no, or more likely a yes, but... There would need to be restrictions. Many of the firms that are likely to want to sponsor schools are likely to be the firms that should not be sponsoring schools. In Britain the government has been trying to reduce the exposure of children to advertising from firms like McDonalds for years as they help to cause obesity. However firms like McDonalds are likely to wish to sponsor schools as one of their main target audiences are children and teenagers. This makes the issue of corporate sponsorship in schools a delicate issue, how do you get extra money while ensuring that children are not negatively influenced?
schools should be sponsored by and sponsoring organizations that promote healthy dining.
Maybe the naked-chef system should be syndicated to Canada.
The U.S is pulling up her sleeves to tackle child obesity and bad cafeteria food just now.
This is an issue; the number one cause of death for men is cardiac disease and it's number one cause is obesity/flab
Corporate sponsorhip to help fund public schools can be a plus or negative, depending upon the chosen sponsor. For example utilizing Mc Donalds can be viewed as negative because of the childhood obesity epidemic we are dealing with in our country right now. But to utilize a sponsor like Crest or Colgate toothpaste can be positive because it encourages kids to take care of their personal hygeine.
Every corporation's aim is to enrich itself. This obvious truism cannot be separated from so-called charitable aims of sponsoring schools. Yes, they can provide better facilities than the state in most instances, especially during a global financial crisis. However, the sponsorship of schools should largely remain the preserve of the state where local communities and parents can be the overseers of the school's agenda which should not be to promote companies like McDonalds or Crest but to encourage children to strive to be better members of society. This can involve questioning the whole structure of capitalism and its effect upon world economies. I don't see how corporations can possibly be expected to allow these kind of debates to occur. And if they are restaurateurs, like McDonalds, providing the food for the children, we will just be looking into a future of fatter, unhealthier kids addicted to junk food. And more of the Amazon disappearing for farming their food. Teachers, like doctors, should be viewed as civil servants, not corporate promoters.
Most concern should be with the children
Allowing corporate sponsorship would show that schools are not doing what they should be doing which is focusing on the children's wellbeing. instead they would be focusing on the potential money gained. There are already problems with health and the difficulty of promoting healthy eating and such sponsorship would make this all the more difficult.
Moreover there has to be a question about whether the advertising is itself good for children. Adverts are distracting and are encouraging children towards consumerism, neither of which are ideal in a school environment where there is a wish to encourage equality and learning.
What do you think?