WOW!

This column may sound strange coming from a person whose livelihood depends in part on the sale of advertising space. I don’t question advertisings effectiveness. Advertising informs, communicates and affects sales. What I do question is the allocation of public funds — taxpayer dollars — to increase attendance in virtual for-profit schools.

In recent weeks, I’ve watched a number of ads on television touting the value of attending a particular virtual, for-profit school. Knowing the price of prime-time television advertising, I’ve wondered how they could afford those ads. Then I read an article in USA TODAY that gave me a little more insight… “An analysis by USA TODAY finds that online charter schools have spent millions in taxpayer dollars on advertising over the past five years, a trend that shows few signs of abating. The primary and high schools — operated online by for-profit companies but with local taxpayer support — are buying TV, radio, newspaper and Internet ads to attract students, even as brick-and-mortar public schools in the districts they serve face budget crunches.”

All I can say is WOW! The use of private monies by for-profit companies is one thing. The use of public monies that are earmarked for “education” is another. What happened to the discussions we were having about allocating more funds for “in classroom” expenses like teachers, programs and materials? All I can do is hope that a new analysis would find that the source of funds for advertising have changed from public to private dollars, and that the public dollars these institutions receive are actually going toward educating students.

Having a choice is a good thing. Healthy competition can help raise the bar and make all schools better. Knowing what choices you have is important. But herein lays the problem. I am a huge proponent of “fairness,” and somehow it does not seem fair when for-profit companies that benefit from the use of taxpayer education dollars spend the precious few education dollars available for students to benefit their own company.

Think about it. What would happen if all schools — public and private — would divert funds from educating students or taking care of the infrastructure they already have in place, and use the funds to buy primetime ads on television. The number of students is finite. More kids would not attend school, they would only change the school they were attending. I, for one, am not convinced that is where our money needs to be spent!

This article originally appeared in the issue of .

Featured

  • UT System Board of Regents Approves $108M Housing Complex

    The University of Texas System Board of Regents recently announced the approval of a new, $108-million housing complex at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), according to a news release. The facility will stand four stories and have a total of 456 new beds for freshmen students.

  • Benson Polytechnic High School in Portland, OR

    Preserving Legacy, Designing for the Future

    As historic academic buildings age, institutions face a difficult decision: preserve and adapt or demolish and rebuild. How do we honor the legacy of these spaces while adapting them to meet the needs of modern learners?

  • California School District Completes Elementary School Modernization

    The San Diego Unified School District in San Diego, Calif., recently held a ribbon-cutting for a whole-site modernization of Pacific Beach Elementary School, according to local news. The school first opened with one building in 1930 and added six more between 1938 and 1957.

  • Wisconsin District Breaks Ground on New Elementary School

    The School District of La Crosse in La Crosse, Wis., recently broke ground on a new elementary school that will consolidate the students and staff of two existing schools, according to local news. Funding for the school comes from a $53-million referendum approved in 2024.