Corporatization
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New relationships and coalitions are being built across and between governments, school systems, communities, and corporations. Bill Gates and Achieve Inc. have been reported to have spent nearly a billion dollars on American public schools. Microsoft Partners in Learning Program have co-opted, signing a reported 64 memoranda of understanding in the education sector (Bhanji, 2005). Bhanji (2005) also reported that corporations are not only forming partnerships with schools, but opening up their own schools (for example, Sony University). Stemming from these discussions is the notion of corporatization. This idea relates to the influence and the mapping of the business model onto the education sector. It helps in thinking about corporatization to turn to corporate liberalism.
Tozer et al (2001) discuss corporate liberalism has having a significant impact on schools in the U.S. system, as well as globally. Corporate liberalism is the role that leaders in the business sector have in shaping and reconfiguring public policy and practice to formulate more of a corporate style of governance. This style of governance promotes accountability, transparency, a focus on outcomes or outputs, performance, productivity, and efficiency. Corporate liberalism, Tozer et al argues involved business leaders in the 1980s and more so in the 1990s being very influential in education, given the connection and emphasis that they put on education's relationship to the economic welfare of a given society. The role that business leaders have in influencing the link between the corporate model and education relates historically to the role of corporations in society, commonly referred to as corporate citizenship.
Roberto Civita, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Abril Group, Brazil and Co-Chair of the Annual Meeting 2002, stated that corporate citizenship should be defined as "capitalism with a social conscious" (http://www.weforum.org/). The Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative (GCCI), of the World Economic Forum, an independent organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, has defined corporate citizenship as "the contribution a company makes to society through its core business activities, its social investment, and philanthropy programs, and its engagement in public policy" (Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative). The initiative moves toward collaboration of the world's foremost corporations on issues related to corporate citizenship, such as enhancing corporate governance and ethics to improve environmental conditions, enhance the development of public policies, such as health care and education, and positively impact labor standards, equal access and opportunity, and human rights. While discussion of global corporate citizenship has become a frontal issue, it is increasingly being defined according to performance indicators and standards. The use of global performance standards to ensure corporate citizenship emphasizes and focuses on outputs and outcomes. Currently, the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) is the set of performance indicators most typically used to measure for corporate citizenship performance.
In 1970, Milton Friedman argued that corporations do not and should not adopt social, philanthropic roles. Rather, corporations, in light of social responsibility, have the task simply of raising profits to maximize capital gains, while maintaining legal and ethical standards. As corporations have moved into taking a greater role in the public sector, the push for philanthropy and social action is enhanced. In Carroll's (1998) developed model of corporate citizenship, four faces play out: Economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary, within which corporate social responsibility lies. Carroll discusses that philanthropy, the basic idea of "giving back," is being molded into a fourth face of corporate citizenship, the "strategic philanthropy" face, in which corporations are involved in efforts surrounding two purposes: To be charitable to communities in need and "give back," while also enjoying the benefits reaped from these charitable efforts. The notion of "strategic philanthropy" directly opposes Friedman's approach, which aligns corporate activity directly with economic, legal, and ethical considerations.
The private sector has increasingly become involved in sponsoring public events, moving from simply placing a brand with an event to full fledged corporate sponsorship, where the brand is the event. On one level, the shift toward increased corporate involvement is in order to ignite and enhance successful marketing of brand names. While corporate sponsorship began as more about a name on a banner, a shift occurred in the late 1990s with "Izod zoos and Nike after-school basketball programs, everything from small community events to large religious gatherings are believed to 'need a sponsor' to get off the ground; August, 1999, for instance, saw the first-ever private wedding with corporate sponsorship" (Klein, 35). Corporate sponsorship and the blending of the private sector into education are also steadily developing. As corporations sought out ways to access schools as potential "marketing pools," the age of technology provided opportunities for increased corporate involvement in schools. Klein (2000) states:
[s]wept up by info-tech hype, schools that couldn't afford up-to-date textbooks were suddenly expected to provide students with audiovisual equipment, video cameras, classroom computers...[i]n this context, corporate partnerships and sponsorship arrangements have seemed to many public schools, particularly those in poorer areas, to be the only possible way out of the high-tech bind. If the price of staying modern is opening up schools to ads, the thinking goes, then parents and teachers will have to grin and bear it. (88)
In 2003, Microsoft Corp. announced a plan in partnership with Paul Vallas, chief executive officer of the Philadelphia school district, to begin construction on a $46 million high school that would be equipped with the most advanced technology in education ( Hurst , 2003). Upon announcement of the partnership, concerns were raised regarding the role that Microsoft Corporation would play in the new school, and whether the new Microsoft school would be for Microsoft only or the school would be free to choose from other vendors. Regardless of any tightly held reigns Microsoft may have over one high school in Philadelphia, the pattern continues with school districts promoting brands, such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, Taco Bell, McDonalds, and Burger King. Schools and districts now accepting private sponsorship from corporations, such as Dairy Queen and the privatization of schools, as exemplified by Edison Schools Inc., which now currently managing 157 schools in 20 states in 2004 is no surprising venture, but rather a commonplace in US schools (Hurst, Education Week, 2004). Giroux (2002) discusses the shocking example of corporate sponsorship in the case of two American high school graduates, Chris Barrett and Luke McCabe, who began a campaign in the summer of 2001 to seek out corporate sponsorship in order to finance their undergraduate college tuition and living expenses. The two young men advocated their cause with the development of their website, ChrisandLuke.com, decided on sponsorship by First USA (after many other corporate sponsor offers) and ultimately, were featured in hundreds of major media sources nation wide (Giroux, 2002; www.ChrisandLuke.com).
Beyond successful brand name marketing, corporate involvement in education is ultimately an investment. Corporations are increasingly advocating "lifelong learning" as a goal for education systems globally. Increasingly, education is seen as linked directly to the enhancement of human capital and the role of higher education is to streamline high school graduates into the next classes of corporate employees. Intergovernmental organizations, such as the OECD are increasingly aligning education with the advancement of human capital and social cohesion. Along similar lines, Giroux (2002) argues that higher education and knowledge are increasingly viewed as "a form of financial capital" and good investment (432). Consequently, universities are developing into mirror institutions as they are increasingly influenced by corporate culture, where market values of accountability and efficiency are marked as central.
Resources
Bhanji, Z. (American Educational Research Association, 2005) Private authority and transnational corporations: New education policy actors?
Carroll, A. B. The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship Business and Society Review, no. 100/101, 1998, pp. 1-7.
Friedman, M. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, pp. 32+.
Giroux, H. Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education Harvard Educational Review, 72(4) Winter, 2002 pp. 425-63
Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative, http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content
/Global+Corporate+Citizenship+InitiativeKlein, N. (1999) No Logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies New York : Picador
OECD Constitution, http://www.oecd.org/home/
Social Forum Report, December 28, 2000 "Companies, NGO's and Governments Develop Human Rights Principles" http://www.socialfunds.com/, Retrieved 3 December 2004
Tozer, S. et al (2001) School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives McGraw-Hill
Warwick Institute of Governance and Public Management, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/igpm
World Economic Forum, http://www.weforum.org/
Contributed by Laura Engel
