Public School Buses and Internal/External Advertising Spaces

The problem of underfunded public schools in America is one with far-reaching consequences. It is common knowledge that limited and irregular education funding can result in lower student performance, the cutting of valuable programs such as music or art and necessitate school faculty and districts to pick and choose how to enrich the school, leaving other needs neglected or unaddressed. With a lack of recourse as to how public schools can obtain more funds, the concept of advertising in schools and school buses has been considered and adopted by many districts. Advertisements inside and outside of school buses present a wellspring opportunity for much needed public school funding. Allowing advertising inside and outside of public school buses, with proper regulation and policies in place, can protect students from possible harm from the ads and generate revenue that can be critical to public school districts.

One of the main concerns raised about allowing for the sale of ad space inside and outside of public school buses is that of the relationship of the school and commercialization. Students are deemed a “captive audience” while in compulsory school, surrounded by figures of authority and example, i.e. instructors, which logically extends to school bus rides (Pomeranz 1640). Opponents of school bus advertising argue that “captive” students are exposed to advertising that may be construed as acceptable or recommended by the school (Provenzo, Jr. 21). They also contend that the ads encourage commercialization, and maintain that companies seek to directly target the market segment of children, young people, teachers, and other groups associated with schools (Provenzo, Jr. 21). Opponents seek to keep commercialization out of education and prevent a conflation of ads and school authority.

However, these arguments ignore the social reality of contemporary America’s youth and the unabashed collusion between education and commercialization that already exists. One such example is the collection of product box tops for “education” (Provenzo, Jr. 20-21). Additionally, young people and children are a major consumer demographic that has strong capability to raise local state revenue and benefit their own schools, “Students themselves influence billions of dollars in consumer purchases in America” (Provenzo, Jr. 21). Rather than casting that fact in a suspicious light, the consumerism that students encourage actually empowers their schools to provide a better education, which in turn, empowers students. In light of this, the above contention seems to be more interested in perpetuating mythological public school ideology than locating ways to improve public school in general. With policy-regulated advertising both inside and outside of school buses, public schools can secure at least “modest” revenue for the state and in turn, the school (Pomeranz 1638). With lower-income schools especially, even a modest amount of extra funding can be of great benefit to students.

Another dispute against selling both inside and outside advertising space in school buses lay in public health concerns. According to Schlosser, “Today, the nation’s fast-food chains are marketing their products in public schools…as well as a number of other unorthodox means” with internal and external school bus ads acting as one of the “unorthodox means” (52). Public fears concerning rising children’s and young people’s obesity are tied to unhealthy food advertising both in schools and the school bus environment. Additionally, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report found that nationally, 49% of all middle and high school districts allow advertising for unhealthy foods” (Pomeranz 1639). Since a student aboard a school bus “may view an interior bus ad as many as 7 times in every 35 minute ride”, opponents argue than internal school bus ads are especially influential (Pomeranz 1641). In this way, internal bus ads are particularly discouraged by detractors and raise concerns about schools and corporate interests.

While unhealthy food advertising is certainly a problem with today’s youth, unwholesome advertising in internal and external school buses can be avoided through careful, consistent, school-value oriented policy. Additionally, schools must be careful to engage school bus ads in the legal context of a nonpublic forum, which allows for the expressed placement of ads as well as tight control over the content (Pomeranz 1641). With diligent policy, internal and external school bus ads can be tailored to ensure that students will be protected and safeguarded from harmful, coercive, political, religious, and other controversial content (Pomeranz 1641). Effective use of a nonpublic forum can also prevent First Amendment lawsuits arising due to school bus ad regulation (Pomeranz 1641). With careful policy consideration, revenue can be maximized while also protecting and safeguarding students.

While oppositional arguments of internal and external school bus ads are plentiful, they seem to be more rooted in ideological, image-related notions of schools and unable to recognize the benefit of school bus ad revenue as it relates to real student needs and empowerment. Concerns about public health and the opening of school bus internal ads to potentially harmful messages are valid but can be regulated through effective policy within a legal, nonpublic forum context. Until public schools receive the funding required to fully fulfill their responsibilities to students, school bus ads will continue to be an important way to bridge funding gaps.

Works Cited

Pomeranz, Jennifer L. "The Wheels on the Bus Go "Buy Buy Buy": School Bus Advertising Laws." American Journal of Public Health 102.12 (2012): 1638-1643. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Provenzo, Jr., Eugene F.. Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2009. Print.

Schlosser, Eric. Fast food nation: the dark side of the all-American meal. New York, NY: Perennial, 2002. Print.