The Imprint of Business Norms on American Education By Dameon V ...

Business professionals perceive their intentions as helping schools to prepare students for success in the information economy, a marketplace where problem-solving skills are valued (Senge, 1990). What is problematic is that the discourse of commercialism replaces that of democracy. One consequence is that professionalism as well as “consumerism appears to be the only kind of citizenship being offered to children” (Giroux, 1998). Furthermore, with prepackaged curricula being produced by corporations, new modes of knowledge that are introduced in schools are now biased towards the customs of business (Molnar, 2005; Sowell, 1993). Here, the problem is that a prepackaged curriculum promotes thinking skills that are narrowly defined within a singular context: corporate culture.

The idiosyncratic curricula promoted by some companies affect the autonomous knowledge processes in schools. In many cases, “in exchange for advertising space and market research, businesses provide money, teaching materials, technology resources and sports equipment,” particularly to underfunded schools whose tax-based funding is dwindling (Molnar & Reaves, 2001). This means that many schools are cornered into a position of dependence upon corporations for their funding (administrative) and educational (pedagogy) needs. This dependence translates into companies tacitly dictating to schools conformity to their needs and interests.

Schools are not the only educational institutions that are affected; universities are, too. For example, “in the quest for public funds…public and private universities tend to see K–12 [kindergarten to the senior year of high school] public education as their chief source of competition” (Tanner, 2000). This means that universities and schools scramble after the same funding sources, both public and private. Furthermore, it has been widely observed that university presidents are not selected for their intellectual prowess in education but “for their power and influence with internal and external constituencies” (p. 191). And, though “the university’s mission is for the advancement of knowledge, the university president is chosen for his or her capacity as a leader of a large organization” (p. 191). In this way, universities adopt a business paradigm—moving from educationist to strategic management thinking.