A few years ago, when I visited Michigan, I spoke with about 80 district superintendents. The most common complaint from them was the money they had to spend every year advertising themselves in a fierce competition with other districts. The money follows the child, so larger enrollments meant bigger budgets. Each district, they said, typically puts about $100,000 into campaign to poach students away from neighboring districts.
They thought this was a huge waste of resources, since they also had to hire people to design their marketing materials.
This study reviews the practices of branding and marketing schools in a competitive environment.
The charter chain that does it best is Success Academies, which targets its audience, sends out mailers, and blankets the neighborhood with notices to parents. Its goal is to have more applicants than places, so it can advertise that it has a long waiting list.
When Success Academy opened its first school in Harlem, it had a marketing budget of $325,000. The public school with which it competed had $500 to print flyers and brochures.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
A major problem. I looked at charter school applications for federal grants. These routinely included costs for “recruiting” students and teachers. In other words, the local dollars going into advertising are often complemented by federal dollars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AND I often wonder if Title I funds are allowed to be used as funding for advertising; it is very hard to find out exactly how districts spend their Title I money.
LikeLike
The $71 million that the US Dept. of Ed. sent to Ohio to expand charter schools, what are the projected line item expenditures for that pool of money?
Does ODE get to divvy it up so that it reaches Republican campaign donors?
LikeLike
The main thing that advertising firms sell is more advertising.
See “Red Queen Effect”.
LikeLike
Public education was never intended to be a market based operation. Public education is designed to be a democratic arm of the state, and it is intended to serve the needs of a community, not a market. The so called free market is actually a rigged market. Since many charters are supported by billionaires, this competition is unfair, particularly if a public school in a poor minority community has already suffered severe budget cuts due to charter expansion. Charters can afford a huge marketing campaign, and public schools have few resources at their disposal. How can a dilapidated, underfunded old public school building compete with a shiny new facility, which is sometimes the case with new charters? Actually, all of the rhetoric about choice and competition is a distraction from our obligation to provide our young people with a solid preparation for their future endeavors. We do not need to waste resources on a parallel system of splinter schools that increase segregation. We need to invest in legitimate public education that can serve the needs of most of our students.
LikeLike
Thanks for including the link to this excellent paper.
LikeLike
My school has a marketing budget of zero dollars and three cents. Our marketing strategy consists of spending time, lots of time. The principal gathers together “lead” teachers and they spend time talking about how to market instead of how to manage. The principal gathers parents, teachers, and students and convinces them to write compliments about her and the school on greatschools.org. The competition is very motivating — it motivates us to ignore the responsibilities of our jobs.
LikeLike
Our reformer friends are always screaming “LISTEN TO THE PARENTS!”
Well, here you go….
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/school-zone/os-testing-teacher-evaluations-grades-orange-survey-20160725-story.html
LikeLike