In light of recent media attention regarding corporate philanthropy, this paper will focus on corporate driven explanations of the NetDay strategy and its success in various contexts. Corporate philanthropy will be reviewed as a strategic method of community influence and involvement, and then as a component of business involvement in education.

How does corporate philanthropy, corporate social responsibility and corporate community involvement impact education policy and how will the growth of multinational companies change the current balance of locally and nationally based donations? American and Australian companies have different corporate and individual philanthropic cultures. These cultures as well as external tax laws and public perceptions alter the approach to corporate social responsibility and corporate philanthropy in each country. With heightened pressure on schools internationally to increase technology uptake in the classroom, the education sector will have greater contact with corporations -- particularly with the information technology sector. One example of this interface in the United States and Australia is NetDay. NetDay is strategy to use community resources (corporate contributions and community volunteer labor) to network schools to the Internet.

This paper is part of a larger study that explores the context for the implementation of an educational policy in two national contexts. NetDay offers an opportunity for comparative policy analysis of technology policy in schools and school systems. Often international studies of educational technology policy explore student to computer ratios or percentages of schools with network connectivity. These figures only reveal international extremes or statistical anomalies rather than view educational technology as a means of education reform through curricular integration or pedagogical alteration. By examining NetDay, I can explore one particular aspect of technology in schools and view how national systems (and the schools in their local contexts) react to corporate, government and community imperatives for change.

Increasingly, multinational corporations wish to be seen as paying greater attention to issues of community and social responsibility. Ranging from the "enlightened self-interest" of cause related marketing to genuine philanthropy, many companies focus their community investment efforts on the environment, welfare needs such as health and housing, and, increasingly, K-12 education. The information technology industry, in particular, often places a large emphasis on education in its corporate affairs strategy. Through the lens of NetDay, I intend to critically examine the impact of corporate involvement in the effort to wire schools to the Internet. The comparative aspect of my study will allow me to consider how each country's educational and philanthropic cultures affect policy development and implementation.

Ideally, NetDay will offer a lens to view the contrasts and similarities between the Australian and American educational systems. Other issues of comparative policy structures include the information technology sector and how its corporate culture impacts its approach to community involvement. NetDay relies on the resources of many sectors including education, corporate, community, media and politics. More importantly NetDay can offer lessons to educational systems about negotiation with the information technology sector as it becomes increasingly more prevalent and relevant in society's understanding of what school is for. Implementing network infrastructure, hardware, software, curricular integration and professional development may require corporate involvement when the public sector offers fewer direct resources to schools. This relationship will take different forms on various local contexts.

This paper will provide some background in order to explore the adoption of a similar educational policy in different national contexts. The NetDay movement can be examined from several perspectives including community service, corporate philanthropy and the connection between calls for networked schools and business involvement in school reform. NetDay and its various permutations offers a glimpse at the range of business involvement in education that can range from industry partnerships for training, to corporate funded schools, and beyond to sponsored curriculum that promote a specific product or industry. A California NetDay may be corporate-led but a Massachusetts community devoid of any information technology industry may have a volunteer-driven NetDay supported by mythical or actual social capital.

To offer insights into business involvement in education, this paper will provide a background on corporate philanthropy as a general business strategy as well as how the two countries differ in experience when it is applied to schools. To explore this issue I will: 1) describe the various paradigms and strategies of current modes of corporate philanthropy as a marketing and social strategy 2) demonstrate how each country has a different background in corporate-school relations 3) illustrate the particular issues of school - business partnerships with the information technology sector and 4) explain how NetDay can highlight shifts in approaches to these relationships.

In order to place NetDay in its original context, American corporate philanthropy will be examined before its Australian counterpart. Although corporate citizenship strategies are varied throughout the world, the American experience is thought to be exceptional in its scope but may only be unique in its perceived impact and prevalence. While only five percent of total philanthropic giving, corporate giving in the United States yields the significant sum of 6.5 billion dollars per annum . While it is understood that corporations and their communities have a natural inter-woven relationship, many view the philanthropic expression of this affinity as a part of a companies core values while other firms see it as component of profit-driven strategy . Most corporate affairs strategies span this continuum and make programmatic choices that promote a desired image while intending to enhance the social good. Corporations act in their own self-interest when they apply a community affairs strategy that creates a congenial environment in which their employees can live and work. The balance between corporations and communities can be offset by a failure of the community to provide adequate services for employees or if the corporation harms its environment. As Peter Dobkin Hall argues, we need to seek a balance with enough "social capital which makes possible both ordered economic activity and ordered public life" .

Corporate philanthropy as part of an overall corporate affairs strategy and sense of corporate social responsibility can bolster an existing positive image or offset negative perceptions of a firm. Corporations can choose to invest their philanthropic budget to support their local community or -- as we will see later in this paper -- they may choose to invest strategically in a market rather than employee-based manner. The choices that corporations make may have superficial impact or long standing consequences. The statement that "Business firms in this century occupy social positions roughing equivalent to the prominent posts held in other eras in the church, the nobility, the army, even feudal lords", begs the question: if corporations impact our lives more than other sectors including government, should governments be compelled to design policy that encourages corporate involvement in the community instead of extracting a level of tax that enables them to implement programs of their own .

A government can choose to foster a climate that is hostile or supportive of corporate giving . American corporate philanthropy has changed in significant ways over the last century as the government altered tax laws. At the early part of this century the American tax code encouraged "direct benefit" contributions that impacted employees through charitable or other non-profit organisations such as schools, hospitals or community centres . This limit can be viewed as a check against false philanthropy to build market support. Corporations often channelled profits into family foundations as well as in-house grant-makers for tax purposes. By the 1950's, the concept of direct benefit expanded to include sponsorship of cultural events even if the employees did not have active inclusion in these events. By 1953 the existing laws were overturned and corporations were allowed to act in "their own best interest" . The dramatic change due to easement of direct benefit clauses altered the scope of giving. The 1960's and 1970's brought external demands for increased social responsibility as well as direct charitable contributions. Corporations responded by expanding in-house foundations and setting targets for pre-tax giving. Concepts such as "social auditing" reflected a corporation's need to appease public sentiment for respectful marketing, environmental impact controls, and civic consciousness. This century saw a shift from laws that promoted a paternalistic care for employees to an arena where beneficiaries of corporate largesse expanded to include a wider range of stakeholders.

These efforts stirred a backlash most famously articulated by the economist Milton Friedman . He argued that the goal of business is to bring profit to its shareholders and anything -- such as nebulous issues of social responsibility and corporate citizenship -- that detracts from this primary goal should be avoided. What is not often included when this argument is paraphrased was Freidman's caveat that socially responsible activities should be strongly encouraged when they brought increased profit to the firm or direct benefit to its employees (and thereby intensifying their work outputs and quality). In this way corporations could focus on their most important role as a market rather than political or social force . Nevin-Gattle articulates this understanding as "[i]ndustry's willingness to fund social goals is an acknowledgment of its dependence upon the health of the society in which it operates. This pragmatic acknowledgment is at the heart of each corporate gift" (1995 p.2).

In the 1980's, Reaganomics, combined with shifts in corporate strategy, amounted in increased philanthropic demands just when corporations were least fiscally able to give . This decade was characterised by strong encouragement from the Reagan administration to increase sectoral collaboration on a local level to counteract the withdrawal of large-scale social welfare programs. In this era of decreased social services, corporations worked with their communities to develop partnerships. These efforts were offset by a poor business climate of recession and hostile takeovers. During this time strategies of corporate philanthropy diversified to include non-cash methods. Urban states, "Rather than focusing exclusively on direct giving, corporations began to think of their public involvement as an investment combining economic and strategic goals as well as social concerns" . These efforts could be seen through loaning executives, encouraging and compensating employees for their volunteer efforts, sponsorships, and matching contributions among other strategies. The new partnerships across sectoral lines can be viewed as "a strategy that includes leveraging contributions with other internal corporate resources and building alliances with non-profit organizations and local government" (Nevin-Gattle, 1995, p.11). Despite the growing sophistication of community involvement methods there remained concerns about how far government could or should shift certain functions to the private sector .

Given increased calls from direct beneficiaries and stakeholders, the placement of philanthropic dollars needed justification greater than personal preference or precedent. Downsizing and increased global competition placed pressures on corporate relations and corporate philanthropy officers to justify their efforts. Systematic accounting was demanded for programs that would be complimentary to the overall business objectives of the corporation . Meanwhile, the shift from industrial to information economies contributed to more holistic approaches to corporate philanthropy with a less isolated and peripheral approach within a firm. However 'counter- intuitive', it has become commonplace that corporate philanthropy must return value to the company and not simply draw down resources. Likewise, companies must balance the community expectation that corporate philanthropy is no longer optional. As Ron Burke from NAB has stated, "[p]eople's expectations now are that companies will add value to communities that go beyond the traditional economic role of operating efficiently, offering employment and selling goods or services" .

The language and method of corporate philanthropy has changed over the last decade. Shifts towards increased ratios favouring non-cash to cash donations accompanied altered terminology. Urban argues that two predominant paradigms have emerged including stakeholder participation ("consideration of constituency groups") and corporate citizenship ("business self-interest aligned with conscious action to further the larger good of the global community") . The repercussions of these models can be viewed in the trends towards employee voluntarism, CEO's focusing on particular causes rather than serving as a figure-head on multiple boards, cause-related marketing and strategic alignment with non-profit organisations. These trends and changes occurred in a climate of downsizing, the Clinton administration's promotion of community service and increased transnational movement of corporations. The internalization of business has also caused corporations to both increase and rethink their giving priorities and strategies.

Beesley and Evans argued "the more complex the relationship between company and society, the more issues of legitimisation of company actions and control of them intrude . Many modern firms acknowledge this complexity as a need to consider the economic, social and environmental consequences of their business -- not to design compensatory philanthropy, but rather as a more holistic, systemic philosophy tied to their firm's mission. These complexities are particularly important when deciding how a company will design its corporate giving philosophy. The framework below traces the range of approaches a company can take towards community interaction.

Source: Burlingame, D. F and D.R Young , Eds. (1996). Corporate Philanthropy at the Crossroads. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, p.97.

Burlingame and Young articulate a series of models with four alternative understandings of corporate philanthropy that incorporates the philosophies above. The first model, Neoclassical/Corporate Productivity, represents the Friedman ethic of corporate social responsibility as part of an overall profit motive. The Ethical/Altruistic model is best described as a citizenship approach that respects the interwoven relationship between the company and its community. The Political model involves using corporate philanthropy to offset government involvement and allow the company to protect its interests the public policy sphere. And finally, the Stakeholder model seeks to balance the competing demands of the various groups that support a company including customers and stockholders.

Although a corporation can employ various strategies towards social responsibility some argue that actions that benefit the companies bottom-line should not be labelled as such. The new moves towards strategic philanthropy, directed partnerships and stakeholder approaches allow for a greater connection with existing community public and non-profit efforts with greater transparency of motive.

With shifting paradigms come different strategies for corporate giving. Simply writing and dispensing cheques distances the company from the problem and, thus, from the solution. A far more active approach to giving also allows greater recognition and exposure for the corporation. Partnerships can increase impact and return on the philanthropic investment. Yankey lists the new strategies of corporate philanthropy as 1)cause related marketing 2)sponsorships 3) gifts-in-kind 4)employee voluntarism and 5)partnerships . Cause related marketing connects an advertising campaign to a worthy cause that also promotes the product (Smith, 1994). Thus a bookstore works to combat illiteracy while the customers enjoy spreading their pastime to others and the bookstore creates a larger future customer base. Sponsorships allow a corporation exposure whether their logo is on an exhibition poster or amateur athletic contest advertisement. Gifts in kind permit companies to shed inventory while promoting their product. Employee voluntarism encourages employees to develop skills in the larger community while non-profit organisations benefit from external advice and expertise. Often these employees are given release time or payment for volunteer activities but sometimes a corporate volunteer coordinator will simply publicise opportunities and successful cases. And finally, partnerships combine several of the techniques outlined above to create a sustained relationship between a cause or non-profit organisations that ostensibly would create a win-win for both entities. As I will examine below, employee voluntarism and gifts in kind are extremely relevant in the case of technology and schools. Companies can do a great deal formally or informally to promote employee voluntarism ranging from providing time release for volunteer activity to simply posting a list of volunteer opportunities in the community. This activity is increasingly acknowledged as providing benefit to the employee, their community and their company . Likewise, although private-public partnerships are not new they are quite effective since "multiple powerful players have a stake in the success of the project , thus increasing the likelihood that political barriers to success will be removed".

The growth of these new strategies and other non-cash methods hide the full impact of corporate philanthropy since their effect cannot be measured in simple dollar amounts. The most effective new partnerships combine cash and personnel grants as well as develop consortiums that can leverage influence and impact. Korngold and Voudouris argue that "strategic involvement in the community presents unique opportunities to the company to enhance its position in the market and to develop and instil vision, teamwork, and leadership skills among personnel" . While it may appear that the new approaches to corporate philanthropy offer more comprehensive benefits to all involved, they also allow a more invasive and perhaps insidious approach into schools that will be explored in the next section. First, however, Australia's culture of corporate and general philanthropy must be explored.

When NetDay style projects were initially proposed in Australia a typical response was that Australians are not as philanthropic or volunteer-oriented as Americans and 'it could never work here'. Americans do give four times more per capita than Australians in their private giving but their companies do not give remarkably different sums of their pre-tax profits . Professor Mark Lyons from the Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management, argues that Americans learn to give through their churches and comparatively fewer Australians do. This alters how they approach community and corporate attitudes towards giving. Lyons contends,

Americans don't like government. Some of their giving - particularly by wealthy Americans - aims to keep government out of certain areas. In Australia, on the other hand, there is a belief that we highly taxed and an expectation that the Government uses the tax to do whatever needs to be done. In fact we are slightly less taxed than Americans, but while that belief continues people aren't going to give particularly well.

Lyons makes the further point that Australians hold long-standing beliefs that government will provide for all who are in need due to the perception that there is heavy taxation and strong welfare supports. The fact that their government spends less than the United Kingdom and almost the same amount as Americans on social supports is often viewed with disbelief . A potential shift towards promoting corporate responsibility may even suggest a return to an Australia of the past. One member of Philanthropy Australia commented, "philanthropists earlier this century were themselves captain of industry and enterprise, who had a strong belief that the success of their enterprise was bound into a viable community. The new emphasis in board rooms, suggests that corporate philanthropy is a logical evolution on sustaining the needs of the Australian community". Despite this precedent to build upon or evolve from, Lyons contends, "government support for philanthropy is underdeveloped and contradictory...[it] institutionalises a view that philanthropy is a quaint habit which is dying out" (Lyons, 1994 p.6).

Despite a perceived cultural and historical antipathy to giving, there are moves underway to promote a greater reliance on individual, corporate and community giving. In February 1998, the Prime Minister convened a group of leaders from across the philanthropic and corporate spectrum to explore what might be done to increase cross-sector collaboration. Labelled by John Howard as "a new balance between government, business and community" his Corporate Philanthropy Roundtable will seek to promote its cause through public awareness, awards for best practice and potential tax reform . Although there is attitudinal shift to accomplish, an even greater need is to shift the tax incentives to giving. Even if the tax laws were to change, Australians might see the Prime Minister's notions of philanthropy as a shirking of government responsibility.

Meanwhile, many Australian corporations are reconsidering their approach to corporate giving and citizenship. In an inaugural public address on Australian corporate public affairs, John Prescott (1995) of BHP argued the 'legitimacy gap' that followed in the 1980's after environmental and consumer movements of the 1970's has altered the current business-society relationship. Paraphrasing Drucker , Prescott contended that "as well as pay-offs in terms of reputation and credibility, being a good corporate citizen is a matter of enlightened self interest " . Prescott spoke of reaching for greater community "engagement" to foster a climate of better business-society relations. He further asserted that Australians should seek a more cooperative and less individualistic approach to national competitiveness where "firms and communities think more about national interest" . Countries that espouse better quality corporate governance will have higher world esteem and competitive advantage. Thus he concluded that there is "no conflict between pursuing a stronger business-community partnership and maximising profits," . Essentially Mr. Prescott echoed the Australian approach in the 1990's of corporate citizenship as a essential, strategic issue that does not conflict with profit-driven motives.

The following year the address was presented by the Chairman of Foster's Brewing Group, Mr. J.T. Ralph. The quote below provides a philosophical and quite astute understanding of why Australian's do not encourage or demand that their corporations give in a transparent and systemic manner:

Given that so much of the discussion [about corporate responsibility] has emerged in the United States it is worth noting, at this point, some significant socio-political differences between Australia and the United States. In Australia, the strong role for government in regulating work, industry and social life has been traditionally accepted. Geoffrey Blainey has said this was related to the idea that tall poppies should be cut down. In the United States, however, the belief was strong that a 'certain ideological and religious soil was desirable' because it allowed tall poppies to flourish. In America, the tall poppy, especially if it was self sown, was hailed as a sign of energy delivering benefits to the community. Individual achievement, particularly economic accomplishment, was a hallmark of American nationalism. Much of Australia's competitiveness, and nationalism, has been expressed in sport, and business achievement is rarely, if ever, celebrated to a similar extent.

This fundamental difference between the two countries is particularly important because, as I have indicated, the modern idea of a corporate social responsibility has its roots in thinking about the role of business in society; or more accurately, the role of business in the society of the United States. American business has had a role, for much of this century, in areas which, in Australia, here have been the sole domain of Government.

Ralph argues that profit and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive but that the discussion should focus on responsiveness instead of "conform[ing] to legitimate community expectations." And these 'legitimate' expectations are quite different in Australia and are often viewed as antithetical to creating shareholder wealth or -- at the other end of the spectrum -- seen as not collectivist enough . The concept of the "tall poppy" must be emphasised since it is a dominant theme in Australian life. This is not to say Australians are not community-minded in the way that Ralph suggests. Certain entrenched volunteer movements such as surf lifesaving and bush fire brigades receive community and corporate support. These activities, however vital and dangerous, were predominantly male in origin and physically challenging -- like professional sport. Corporate support for boats, trucks and helicopters is lauded by the public as essential but there is not equal expectation for other sectors' needs.

Alongside the Prime Minister's working group, other major corporate foundations are seeking to promote a stronger giving ethic. The Myer Foundation is leading a consortium to look at ways to improve corporate giving in Australia. Given the recurrent worldwide theme of reduced government social services, the corporate community in Australia is looking for new and more valuable ways to make connections with the community. Michael Liffman of the Myer Foundation contends, "In Australia we need to broaden the definition of corporate philanthropy. It's always meant that you simply write a big cheque and it disappears and you never see real results. But if you can involve people in development of specific projects...you lock them into a longer-term and more purposeful approach" . The Myer Foundation investigation is cited as one of many new federal and state initiatives to partner community and corporate activity. In response to this new changing perspective from the corporations, consumer research now suggests that Australians are more likely to purchase a product affiliated with a social cause all things being equal . The combination of changing strategies and ethos as well as the ever-shrinking social welfare safety net, are highly likely to cause Australian corporations and communities to look towards each other for more useful, strategic and systemic partnerships.

Before examining the specific case of corporate philanthropy and educational technology, it may prove useful to view other examples of corporate involvement in education. The history of business involvement in education spans a continuum of work-related training to product placement for business development (see Appendix A). Historically, trade and professional organisations have been sponsors of schools to train, control and maintain standards in their occupation. What has evolved throughout this century through advertising, technology and changed ethos, is the rise of the view that schools are contained sources of a vast consumer market. In his book Giving Kids the Business, Alex Molnar (1996) traces the impact of corporate forays into America's schools. In particular, he examines how corporations in the last two decades have had to balance negative commentary from their CEO's about the deplorable state of schools while their corporate relations departments were pouring significant amounts of money into school partnerships. Thus, while their executives hold summits on school reform, companies' marketing departments hire groups like Lifetime Learning to concurrently market their products into schools "through custom-made learning materials created with your specific marketing objectives" . What Molnar calls the "good cop, bad cop" policy resulted in part from the Nation At Risk report that challenged American business to participate in education to ensure competitiveness. While one department of a company spoke of reform, the other tried to develop profit-driven involvement in schools and still another launched philanthropic efforts in local schools. This paradox highlights the challenges the education sector faces when presented with interest and assets from an outside source while guarding core functions and protecting children from commercial exploitation.

Governments do have some control over the balance of business involvement and influence in education. Although the pressure groups in a pluralistic society have the ability to influence policy, governments often hold the final authority to enact policy design and implementation. Many large changes occur through influence outside the traditional policy structure from business, media and local civil struggles. Walker contends that a system of "negotiated design" allows competing interests to navigate the system and exert influence . Governments have three policy tools they can apply: money, authority and rules. These tools can be applied through various instruments including mandates, inducements, capacity-building, and system-changing (McDonnell and Elmore 1987, p,137). Increasingly in both countries, although more so in the United States, corporations have gained the ability to use these same tools and instruments to influence public policy -- especially education policy .

This influence became apparent when world -wide economic shifts in the 1970's impacted the United States and Australia and altered the corporate perception of the effectiveness of education. The transitions and economic shifts "all combined to light a fire under those -- particularly in the business community -- most directly concerned with national economic policy" to consider education as a problem and a crisis that needed solving . Australia faced similar international economic pressures along with a severe drought in the early 1980's. Although many critics in the United States looked at other factors to stimulate economic recovery, education came under the spotlight (Lund, 1988). As it became more apparent that the uptake of new and sophisticated in a global arena would influence economic prowess, some argued that math, science and technology literacy were the "human capital requirements of productivity and innovation in the modern age" . The 1980's brought increased educational expectations with the a barrage of U.S. reports, including A Nation at Risk, that called for increased quality and applicability of education to economic needs. At the same time expectations were raised, access to funds diminished.

The most dramatic developments in corporate giving over the last few decades that will impact education have been in cause-related marketing and socially responsible investing. The later appeases stockholders and other stakeholders by shielding them from unnecessary controversy and making their investment dollar reap other non-monetary benefits. The former is where education may benefit the most. Cause related marketing employs many traditional marketing methods that promote the company as well as the product. The bottom-line is still the driving force but it engenders the consumer with positive notions of the product's source .

Even when profits are low, cause related marketing will take the place of direct charitable contributions and schools can be a favourable target for this method. Cause related marketing allows a company to enhance its profile by attaching its name as a sponsor, primary or otherwise, of a program. Typically the program supports the mission of the profit generating source. It permits the customer to directly and consciously participate in the giving process through their purchase. Increasingly, when all product aspects are equal, educated consumers gravitate to a known cause or steer away from a controversial program. Cause related marketing is especially potent on a macro or national scale. On the micro and meso levels, schools also benefit from local initiatives that involve "adoption" programs. The schools receive loaned executives for instruction and consultation and the students receive scholarships to attend college . Programs such as these on are the rise and high-tech companies increasingly develop corporate relations strategies to connect to their communities and its schools.

Australian schools have also had a direct interface with corporations through sponsorship. Traditionally, Australian schools can accept sponsorship so long as the company does not represent "tobacco products, alcohol or munitions," . Although these basic restrictions have been skirted at times, recently two events have caused particular worry. In his paper "The Corporate Invasion of Schools" (1995), Kevin Harrison quotes Sheila Harty's 1979 American book Hucksters in the Classroom as a prescient text of what was to come in Australia by 1995. Harty argues that corporate provision of product to schools directly as samples or indirectly through infamous American promotions like the 1970's Campbell's Soup "Labels for Education" program. In a similar scheme, the major retail chain Coles Myer promoted a program whereby schools could redeem shopping dockets for computers. Although in many cases students were able to submit dockets for computer equipment, Coles Myer failed to discuss that the program was not simply a passive collection and redemption scheme with a win-win notion. What they never conveyed in their promotional material was that students were hassling shoppers for the dockets to achieve difficult quotas while their teachers put in extensive unpaid time to administer the program and that, in desperation, schools encouraged parents to stock up on non-perishables as docket deadlines loomed. Through various calculations, Harris demonstrates that had a particular school asked each child's family for seven dollars they could have avoided the whole laborious scheme and shopped at a less costly grocery chain. The New South Wales Teachers Federation responded with the statement, "The behaviour of many teachers in putting pressure on children to shop in particular stores in order to gain benefits for the school can only be seen as unethical, ".

The second corporate foray into schools that caused the press and some parents to howl, was the McDonald's School Sports Development Program. In order to gain corporate funds for school sport activities, teachers would be encouraged to promote McDonald's within the school community. In addition to displaying corporate logos in the school buildings, the school would be encouraged to associate "major school reward situations" with the restaurant chain and "establish links between McDonald's and the school at many levels," .

These efforts were not isolated or rare (Rosenberg, 1998). Eighty-five percent of Australian schools participated in the Coles program while similar schemes were launched or relaunched in the United States and the United Kingdom. Policy statements from the state departments of education often encouraged schools to "augment" their budget through corporate sponsorship while leaving the decision for program uptake at the local level . Now new school policies regarding partnerships argue that "school councils need a clear policy framework within which to manage such relationships" and that partnerships "must directly contribute to enhancing educational opportunities for students or have some educational purpose" . While school's have often used local companies to sponsor school fetes, annuals, uniforms or other activities, it is the scale of market mileage that a larger company receives from this self-promotion that raises larger ethical questions. Although altruism and community perception are existing motivations, one corporate affairs officer argues although "investing in education now will save corporations millions in training in the future...using schools to market your own products will only have a negative impact on other more promising school/business partnerships" .

Although both Molnar and Harrison focus their case studies on programs in the similar vein of Pizza Hut's Book It scheme, Molnar gives technology a suspicious glance especially when considering the Whittle Corporation's Channel One. Technology in the 1990's has allowed those outside the education sector a means of entrance by advocating a method of reform that will allow students a better scholastic and vocational experience. Although solid evidence is rarely connected to such hyperbolic claims, companies can promote technology in education and appear savvy. Despite a lack of conclusive arguments, Molnar argues,

Technology has become a kind of holy grail for corporate executives and educators alike. It is sought with a childlike faith in its magical ability to heal whatever maladies may afflict the seeker. For the executives, technology offers the enticing possibilities of profits from selling hardware and software to schools and large-scale reductions in the public-school workforce similar to the technology-driven savaging of private-sector jobs in the 1980's. For educators, technology offers a chance to openly change and demonstrate they are not the enemies of progress, as they are so often painted by corporate critics," .

The question of business involvement in education becomes particularly acute when education technology is considered. Increasingly, corporate-school partnerships need critical examination especially when the philanthropy has a direct impact on classroom practice. Additionally, by incorporating educational technology in curriculum, high-tech companies may hope to avoid costly on-site training for future employees. Suspicion also surfaces regarding motive and the loss of autonomy by allowing business to specify desired educational outcomes.

Technology suppliers see schools as sources of current and future profit. Apple Computer has always made K-16 education part of its corporate strategy. In 1984 alone, Apple Computer gave nearly one billion dollars of used equipment to schools. Competitors reacted and revolted by claiming that this "donation" would provide Apple with nearly unchallengeable name recognition and hence it was not a true donation. Congress replied by claiming the equipment donation was not wholly deductible . Equipment donation and deductibility continues to be a contentious issue since much of the equipment is outdated by market standards and thus, the market value claimed for the deduction is somewhat false. Nevertheless, Hewlett-Packard annually donates fifty million dollars in equipment per annum to schools. IBM runs an executive educators program that exposes principles to their technology products while demonstrating their effectiveness as an educational product. In these measures, product related endeavours allow for community goodwill and advertisement. Technology integration into schools offers a unique scenario for technology based firms. A balance must be struck between providing children with the best tools to develop essential skills and the dangerous dilemma of solely cultivating the young consumer.

Technology, however, has opened the schools to the wider community -- whether parents are using the school's web site or businesses are partnering with schools. Anne Bryant from the National School Boards Association says "There's growing interest in businesses connecting with schoolchildren for great and not-so-great reasons," . Many leading education organisations recognise that technology is the first priority for those seeking business and community partnerships. Importantly for schools, many volunteers that enter the classroom to assist with technology projects stay around for their application in teaching and learning.

A study of the Silicon Valley conducted by the Community Foundation Silicon Valley demonstrates that education was the highest priority for corporate giving in the high-tech community . This study follows on from the 1994 assessment corporate community involvement. Significant amongst the findings was that local philanthropic giving had risen considerably during the previous three years with far greater emphasis on education than the national average. Twenty-four percent of all local giving was to K-12 education and sixty-five percent of all giving (including international efforts) to education in general compared to one-third nationally. Employee voluntarism, partnerships with non-profit organisations and targeted giving were also all on the rise .

Elsewhere in the technology sector, Bill and Melinda Gates of Microsoft have demonstrated a technology-oriented style of corporate philanthropy. Their gift in the United States and Canada of $200 million to assist public libraries onto the Internet reflects the business focus of the source of their wealth. Although sometimes labelled "techno-tightwads", many whose wealth came from the computer industry plan to give in new and different ways. Atypical as a traditional philanthropic method, the Gates' gift will be dispersed through a temporary foundation that seeks to solve a single issue quickly rather than devise a trust to operate in perpetuity. When this gift was announced, Larry Ellis of Oracle, Inc. quickly followed by announcing a generous $100 million gift to America's school for computers . These new donors view their gifts as a form of partnership between their company and their community or wider society. This form of social venture capital and partnership building can be seen as "maximising the influence-to-economic-investment ratio"

Many young and growing firms, however, view philanthropy as a luxury that detracts from the profit motive and objective. Although young companies would often like to be good corporate citizens they do not often set up a contributions office or officer in their early years. Gray and Blum demonstrates that it is older, more established companies that can be relied upon for philanthropic activity when shareholders are placated and less concerned about donations. Although many information technology companies could be classified as young, "hot" firms many other information technology companies have shifted into the established category.

The U.S. Government "E-rate" policy will now spur subsequent grant-making from companies with information technology interests as well as more traditional grant-makers. Philanthropy watcher Susan Gray argues, "Corporate grant makers have long been ahead of other foundations in providing money for educational technology programs, but the new federal subsidies to defray Internet-access have given them even more motivation to help schools and libraries," . While corporate grant-makers have long led the trend, more traditional grant makers chose to wait until there was more widespread acceptance of educational technology. A. Richardson Love, Jr. from the Knight Foundation argues "it has become so embedded in what everyone is doing that you can't ignore it," .

Many companies hope that by making grants for some components of gaining access to the Internet -- hardware, software, networking or teacher training -- they may gain follow-on business in the future. The E-rate favours schools in rural areas or those with a high-density of low income students. Schools and libraries will pay lower rates that are subsidised by the government through a levy on telecommunications companies. Schools that may not have considered Internet usage before the E-rate are now seeking these grant makers. This action is not only condoned but strongly encouraged by the government. Ira Fishman, speaking for the Federal Communication Corporations's agency to coordinate the E-rate, claims, "We hope the universal service will be a catalyst for a lot of involvement from grant makers and the corporate grant-making world," . This American education policy demonstrates a strong reliance on the corporate community for educational technology implementation. At the same time grant makers are wary that their largesse needs to be matched by teacher training for curricular integration so their efforts are not vain. As I will try to demonstrate below, NetDay caused many information technology companies, as well as companies from other sectors, to find a means of entrance to public education that could offer many of the same follow-on effects described above.

NetDay used corporate philanthropy as a component of its large-scale movement to network schools and classrooms to the Internet. In 1995 Australia and the United States made "in theory" commitments to connecting all schools to the Internet by the year 2000. Australia began a national program called EdNa (Education Nation) that would work alongside and facilitate state programs for acquiring networked technology. The American commitment had been articulated in the 1992 presidential campaign but its reassertion was concurrent with the development of NetDay in California. One year later NetDay surfaced as a major educational event in over forty of the fifty states. Initially I planned to study why the United States used a strategy of what I would term "guided voluntarism" while Australia focused more on a method of "guarded brokering". Since this time the NetDay strategy of corporate and community collaboration has moved across national borders to countries including the European Community, South Africa, Japan and Australia.

NetDay began in California as an idea between Michael Kaufman of public television station KQED and John Gage of Sun Microsystems. They proposed the concept of "electronic barnraising" that would draw on community resources to wire schools. A combination of corporate philanthropy and community voluntarism, NetDay served as a catalyst to wire over 50,000 classrooms in more than forty states. Essentially schools worked with businesses in their community to obtain wiring "kits" at-cost or through donations and sponsorship. The schools, their communities and businesses supplied volunteers to work together to wire the schools. These volunteers acquired some basic training in wiring and termination by skilled volunteers. Often schools were wired in a few days in advance and the actual Saturday event focused on unveiling a school web site by a local dignitary and demonstration of on-line technology for classroom use.

Although a national planning conference was held in June 1996 for state coordinators to gain valuable information from California, NetDay became largely a state and local effort. A national website, with information available by fax, guides to be downloaded and links to state efforts, often alerted technically savvy and civic minded people to the effort and then directed them to their local school. When state organisations did not exist, often these interested people became NetDay leaders in their communities. Crucial to this effort were technology companies who spread the word through national employee networks, public affairs offices and by making products available at cost or through grants.

As NetDay spread from California across the United States in 1996 it took on various styles to suit local contexts. Many states such as Massachusetts used new non-profit groups to coordinate NetDay efforts, while others worked with PTA's and still others used business consortiums such as Smart Valley in California to assist with not only NetDay but the resulting desired professional development for teachers and network administrators. The first national NetDay held on weekends throughout October 1996 coincided with the final weeks of the Clinton v. Dole presidential election and many fiercely contested local contests. Often politicians competed to be seen at a NetDay school for a Saturday media appearance as November 4th approached. The presence of politicians and media frequently spurred more volunteers to augment the ranks of volunteers who served on design and planning committees leading up to the event. In many cases NetDay shifted emphasis from simply connecting schools to the Internet from the library and several classrooms to creating full local area networks (LANs) within schools. This strategic focus on multi-classroom connections demonstrated a greater understanding of the potential of networks to impact teaching and learning.

1997 and 1998 saw NetDay move to the European Community, South Africa, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Although Australia and its states pursued various strategies to wire school to the Internet, NetDayOz became a national strategy in June 1997 amongst the corporate sector and was then tentatively approved by the educational establishment in Victoria and New South Wales in September 1997. The Victorian government dedicated several staff members and many resources to wire several hundred schools in October 1997. To date, New South Wales has only run a pilot scheme for six schools although a full-scale effort was due to begin in 1998 it has not been launched. New South Wales has committed many resources to creating a wide area network (WAN) to all schools in the state and this central effort will act as a catalyst within schools to connect the WAN to their LAN through efforts like NetDay.

Since multinational computer corporations rather than media or politics have transported NetDay across international boundaries, I am interested in making the crucial variable of my study to be the role of the corporate, state and school cooperation. Further study will allow me to view multinational companies applying tools of corporate relations in varied settings. The purpose of the study will be to illuminate how state policy structures and their accommodation of the corporate sector allow schools to receive philanthropy on the local level. In the case of NetDay, this philanthropy consists of material, monetary and human resources. I seek to view the implementation of the policy from the school level as well as examine its germination in the information technology sector and larger corporate culture. Through the lens of NetDay, I would like to critically examine the impact of corporate involvement in the effort to wire schools. The comparative aspect of my study will allow me to consider how each country's educational and philanthropic cultures affect policy implementation.

The design of NetDay must be analysed to see if its form (community effort and developing sustained cross-sector collaboration) impacts the implementation of the use of the network and how this differs on an interstate and international level.

Basic interpretations of the difference between the Australian and American policy contexts deals with legacies of statist traditions. While overtly social welfare structures existed in Australia until recently, I do not think that this is the only explanation for the relative absence of philanthropic and non-profit solutions to educational and other social needs. While this answer may have been previously sufficient I hope to interpret the current context with the infusion of new industries. As education and economic imperatives are increasingly seen as tightly linked it seems odd that each country would allow ad hoc private and community initiatives to implement what could be viewed as the most basic tenet of the education technology. To leave networking to corporate whim, volunteer initiative and school marketing begs explanation when it underlies the use of computers as tools for globalization.

The comparative nature of this research will perhaps offer the ability to discern whether the changing policy rationale in the education sector or climate of industry can explain a reliance on NetDay to network schools. The eventual success or failure of NetDay in each context will demonstrate whether the reliance on corporate-education cooperation was effective for political implementation. The various mutations in NetDay from California throughout the United States and onto Australia will also allow me to view how policy adapts to local contexts at the planning and intention as well as implementation and actual phases.

At this time I remain unconvinced and concerned that the product (networks) given, sold or placed in schools is used as intended -- if at all -- and that the cross-sectoral partnerships intended will not be sustained to promote professional development, curricular development or LAN maintenance.

Figure 2: NetDay research structure with four case study schools in italics.

With the promise of this new technology explored, it may or may not be apparent why two countries would choose to set matching goals and policy strategies. After an examination of educational technology and the education governance in each country, the cases may provide insight about paths for policy implementation. While other countries also pursue on-line technology, this exploration may expose networking efforts to be another Sputnik phenomenon : the catalyst to a goal full of rhetoric and detached from the reality of daily classroom practice.

Although I have conducted my field work in the United States (March and April 1998), I have not completed the Australian portion. However, a few preliminary conclusions can be drawn. These conclusions, drawn from the literature, my involvement with NetDay organisations in both countries, and analysis of the policy statements, suggest a few guiding thoughts to take into the second half of my fieldwork:

• proximity to a company's headquarters or major source of production allows schools greater bargaining power
• suspicion of what worked elsewhere can override the potential of building on success generated in different contexts
• corporate philanthropy is a reasonable strategy for schools to use as part of their technology plan but it may not be a comprehensive, reliable strategy for governments to suggest for all schools in a system

Further school-based research in both countries will be directed to understanding how some of these issues were experienced at the school-level. The increase in corporate philanthropy -- especially in its most modern incarnations -- in schools and many governments' support of these efforts in K-12 education, suggests that schools need strategies and leveraging methods to gain from these changes.