Every primary school in the State has been targeted repeatedly by commercial companies wanting to promote their products or services to the pupils and their families. Some provide resources free of charge directly to schools for use in the classroom. Most parents know nothing of these, despite the fact that many advertise particular products or services directly to their children, writes Aidan Gaughran.

Other activities involve proof-of-purchase schemes such as collecting tokens which can be exchanged by schools for sports gear or computer equipment based on the number of tokens collected. These, parents are acutely aware of from frequent media campaigns and, I have no doubt, the pester power of children anxious to have something to contribute to the collection box in the school.

In truth, these schemes are so numerous that the only two people who have any idea of the true scale of the problem are the unfortunate school principal and the postman or postwoman!

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) has rightly recognised that this situation is getting out of control and has produced guidelines for schools on how to deal with it.

It is fairly balanced advice. The bottom line is that pupils should be protected from commercial exploitation, but the advice does not rule out all connections between schools and businesses. In fact it suggests that relationships between schools and commercial companies, if based on sound principles, can contribute positively to education. And it accepts that there are many fine examples of schemes that benefit children which do not seek to exploit them or their families.

But apart from schools being bombarded with junk mail promoting these schemes why is this an issue?

Most importantly, young children lack the capability to defend themselves against commercial persuasion. Despite the fact that advertising is widespread in modern society, young children cannot recognise its intent and so adults have a duty of care towards them.

This is accepted in the world of broadcasting. In an area where children's participation is voluntary there is a code to regulate it. How much more important is it, therefore, to have a code in schools where children's participation is, to all intents and purposes, compulsory. The classroom is not multi-channel land and children do not have a remote control.

It also begs the question, if commercially-driven schemes should have no place in our schools then why do schools trade commercial access to pupils in return for resources or rewards?

The answer can be found in the recent OECD Report Education at a Glance 2007 which lifted the lid on how badly Irish schools are funded. Irish spending on education is one of the lowest in the developed world relative to our per capita wealth. On average OECD countries spend 6.2 per cent of GDP on education. In contrast, Ireland spends just 4.6 per cent. Most of our European neighbours spend more on education despite the fact that we have greater per capita wealth.

We also spend far less on primary education than on other parts of the education system. For every €5 spent at primary, €7 is spent at second level compared to €10 at third level. Half of the nation's children are being educated at primary level on less than one-third of total education expenditure. It's little wonder that the Department of Education and Science has stayed so silent on companies targeting schools.

The last pronouncement on this issue dates from 1991 and states: "The Minister again requests school authorities to consider carefully the implications of allowing any situation to develop which would result in parents being put under undue pressure to purchase a particular commercial product. The Minister is confident that school authorities will respond and will take whatever steps may be necessary to eliminate any such undesirable practice where it may occur."

This is hopelessly out of date. The world of marketing and advertising has moved on significantly since then. The Minister has a clear responsibility to ensure that brand promotion, increasing sales and directing the purchasing power of children and their families is not the business of schools.

This kind of reasoning would imply that if there is a problem with commercialism in schools, it's the fault of the schools that use the schemes. Don't dare mention the fact that schools are so under-funded that many have to take part to stay solvent. The Minister uses the same tactic with over-crowded classes, advising parents to go to the school and take the matter up with the principal. God forbid a parent would raise the matter with the Department which appoints a teacher a year after the pupil numbers justify the job!

I have no doubt that many parents resent being pressurised to shop in a particular retail outlet or buy a particular product. I know for a fact that teachers resent having to subsidise their schools with these schemes.

For parents and teachers who would like to hear more on this subject, a conference, Education: whose business is it anyway? is being organised in Trinity College Dublin on Saturday, November 17th. Reservations can be made on www.commercialfreeeducation.com. The key speaker is a world renowned expert in the area, Alex Molner from the US.

Too often we blindly follow where others lead. Will we need to wait until we have an American-style promotion of free televisions for schools in return for daily commercials being shown to pupils between lessons?