I'm ok with the advertisements if the State is the one selling the ads. If anyone is going to profit off of the captive audience that our schools create it should be the taxpayer.

They claim there are no "novel marketing arrangements", but using copyrighted names would generate quite the number of copyright infringement lawsuits if this were the case... I mean, people only spill Mug© Old Fashioned Root Beer... PepsiCo should be up in arms. Unless they were in on the deal. However...

If they're selling their name to CommonCore™, then by god, be honest about it... unless... they're prohibited by their marketing contract from stating they are. Of course, that would be dishonest - just the lesson I want my kids to learn. If Pearson made the schools sign a secrecy agreement requiring them to not disclose, you BET they would have done the same to the advertisers.

And with a captive viewing audience of over a million, in an age bracket that is responsible for a lot of purchasing power, well, if it walks like a quack, and smells like a quack, and acts like a quack... I wonder how many millions Pearson is making from each of these corporations in ad space revenue...

the capitalist in me mulls over the implications. If Mattel, etc. were to pay for textbooks and in doing so want a big banner plastered at the school showing their products or something similar I would say-fine. As long as it doesn't disrupt the education process. BUT in texts and in tests, it doesn't make sense. How is mentioning a brand name conducive to learning or to answering test questions. Seems like a hindrance even-it's not essential information to answering a question or learning facts or concepts. someone is getting paid for adding that somewhere...