Sponsored Education

This week I noticed a new “feature” for sponsored tweets on TweetDeck–certain sponsored tweets “stick” at the top of certain columns. For example, there have been running-related sponsored tweets at the top of my #runchat column. Soon after I noticed this happening, I saw a few tweets complaining about it. Yes, it’s annoying, but TweetDeck is free and makes Twitter so much better, so I don’t mind “supporting” it by having to see sponsored tweets.  And, yes, if the tweet is from a reputable company promoting a product I’m interested it, I might even click on the link. Plus, the sponsored tweets are clearly marked with a pale yellow “sponsored tweet” label. This is probably a great way for TweetDeck to monetize its service, and I want it to make money so it will stick around.

But, there are areas of life where sponsored information is more insidious.

Would you ever think that your child’s education is sponsored by an industry? I know that some groups influence school text books (like groups who don’t want evolution taught in science books, or who want the Biblical creation story taught as well), but most of this occurs through elected school boards, so at least in theory the community as a whole has a say. But an article in this week’s Washington Post was eye-opening and infuriating–according to the article, the coal industry sponsors specific lessons in West Virginia public schools!

Eager to burnish its reputation, the energy industry is spending significant sums of money on education in communities with sensitive coal, natural gas and oil exploration projects. The industry aims to teach students about its contributions to local economies and counter criticism from environmental groups.

How does it do this?

Scholastic, the world’s largest publisher of children’s books, distributed fourth-grade curriculum materials funded by the American Coal Foundation. The “United States of Energy” lesson plan, which the foundation paid $300,000 to develop, went to 66,000 fourth-grade teachers in 2009. After critics raised questions about potential bias, Scholastic announced that it will no longer publish the material in question.

Ack! I don’t even know where to start. It’s hard enough to educate our children about health and nutrition against the onslaught of media promoting sugary drinks and snacks to kids, but to think that we may need to monitor their schoolwork for political/industry bias is overwhelming. I think I am particularly bothered by the West Virginia situation because the coal industry already welds so much power in that state, and the general population may not have the resources to resist its influence.

Then there’s the nutrition guidance from the USDA. I grew up with the “four food groups” and then learned the “food pyramid.” 

As I became more interested in nutrition, I realized that the USDA guidelines were heavily influenced by different industries–agriculture was happy to have the emphasis on grains, and dairy made sure it wasn’t squeezed out.

When I was researching this article, I came across this document from the National Dairy Council highlighting changes in the 2005 guidelines (the rainbow pyramid), including several that promoted dairy.

Now we have brand new guidelines:

Except for the “side of dairy,” I’ve read many diet/nutrition articles that advocated this breakdown as a way to fill your plate, and I generally design my meals this way. I don’t have a glass of milk with dinner anymore, but my kids still do. On the other hand, I am left wondering what the guidelines would look like if they were written for the sake of nutrition only, without any industry influence.

Are you bothered by sponsored tweets?

Have you ever read your child’s textbook to make sure you agree with the lessons?

What do you think about the new “food plate” dietary guidelines?