Coke's "free" gifts of obesity-fighting, educational resources, websites, lesson plans, and events are welcomed by many schools. The lack of funding, confidence, resources and knowledge (or time) to teach health and physical education are also contributing factors.
These programmes are part of the company's global "corporate social responsibility" strategy and act as a type of reputation insurance. They divert attention away from controversial subjects, such as the impact of marketing food and beverages to children, while profiting from the "halo effect" of helping teachers teach and children avoid getting fat.
Clearly, part of Coca-Cola's business strategy is to build brand loyalty and trust in a highly publicised and philanthropic manner - and to a captive audience.
Coke's objective remains the same.
The company also develops goodwill with another important group - policymakers - and continues to successfully avoid stricter regulatory controls in areas such as fat taxes, food labelling systems, legislation and restricted marketing to children.
Self-regulation remains the modus operandi of the food and drink industry. This is assisted by a proliferation of "partnerships" in Coke's school-based anti-obesity programmes, between Coke, government public health and education organisations, charities, voluntary groups and other private sector companies.
So what's the problem? Schools are sites for critical, democratic citizenship, not for the indoctrination of a multinational corporation's view of what it means to be healthy and what a healthy body should look like.
Health and obesity are influenced by a wide range of factors. Coca-Cola "officially" acknowledges this complexity, yet its proposed "commonsense" school solutions are oversimplified. It tends to focus on the same old "burn more calories, eat fewer calories" mantra.
By and large these Coke programmes promote a narrow view of what health is (to be a healthy body weight), how it may be achieved (individual healthy lifestyle choices) and at the same time ignores the wider determinants of children's health, such as poverty, government policy, and corporate advertising.
A child's fatness is treated as a consequence of simply making the "wrong" (greedy and lazy) choices. The message from Coke is if you're fat or unhealthy, it's your own - or your parents' - fault.
The unhealthy consequence is fat children are excessively monitored, and blamed, stigmatised, even bullied for being fat "on purpose".
While Coca-Cola markets itself as socially responsible around obesity, it is transferring the responsibility for the politics of health and obesity on to children. And, understandably, there's confusion among children and teachers about why one of the largest food and drink corporations in the world are teaching them about food and drink.
It's unclear whether we'll see the Coca-Cola ads on screens in Australia and New Zealand.
What is clear is that Coca-Cola will continue to use schools to "teach" children that Coca-Cola is a health-promoting company, with healthy products, and that being healthy is as simple as making the right energy balance choices - and not being fat.
Pushing for regulations to restrict marketing in schools is one way to stem the tide of school commercialism. However, I propose a counter strategy.
Coca-Cola's new ad ends with the line: "we know that when people come together, we can make a real difference". I agree. Teachers can come together with students, principals with teachers, parents with their children, and challenge Coke's solutions and intentions.
Through discussions and debates we can question Coke's views on obesity, challenge the assumption that "fat=lazy=unhealthy", learn how others view health, and even take action to improve those wider influences on children's health.
This is one way school communities could make a real difference to children's health, rather than doing what Coke wants us to do: buy their products and blame ourselves.
Darren Powell is a doctoral candidate in health and physical education at Charles Sturt University in Australia.
http://theconversation.edu.au/
