WO l ^ `S PjK- RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991

W O l ^ ' S P jK -
' ooo OCX? 2- (3H S
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
Third Step:
ON AS TEACHER
*
J jb L
day. each year, each lifetime." he said "than fr
television is education- the
fr° m
S° UrCe'
“ *
of
learning?" (Mi„ o w, May
^
"* ^
“ * Wha‘ 'are we
---------- .M a y 1991, How Vast the Wasteland Now?")
C L d S rh ^ - y ^ V
-= * fc 4 £ p ^
iU u j^ y f ^ y
0
. « « * * » ip i x month old infant is .ftn * * * * * * exposed to about one and a hai.
h ou reof^ levision every day. Viewing time gradually mcreases. peakirg at
about two and a half hours a day, (Uebert and Sprafkin, The Early Win4gw. P
5) and the typical child will have watched TV more than 4,000 hours before
marching off to school. Adding it all up, the nation’s nineteen million
preschoolers watch about 14 billion hours of television every y e a r ‘
£ v^W
filsd rL^ < lX d J ^ .
\
ft T ^ i/ 1' "
Children cuiillrnilhal trievision.fill&the empty spaces of their live. When
Acfh/I^ ir C ^ -ly ^ ‘^ h ’
we asked what they do after school, most of them said "watch TV." One fifth
grader spoke for many when he said that the first thing he does when he gets
home from school is "open the TV and watch it." An eighth grader from
Oakland, California, said she sometimes is bored after school: "I watch TV
when there’s not enough to do." Television has, in short, become the nation’s
baby-sitter, the ubiquitous companion for our children.
Table _
Percentage of Children Who Watch TV After School
5th Graders
Boys
Girls
8th Graders
Bovs
Girls
47%
55%
55%
56%
Not many years ago, TV was seen as ushering in a new golden age of
learning. In the November 1950 issue of Good Housekeeping, an enthusiastic
mother wrote, "I think television is Mama’s best friend, and Kukla, Fran and
OUie are one cogent reason. . . . ’Television," she wrote, "brings into the home
good plays, competently acted." Further, she reminded readers that an
inspired TV teacher by the name of Dr. Ray K. Marshall has a daily program
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
-
"during which he explores subjects such as earthquakes, the solar system, and
nuclear fusion. Seeing what he can accomplish in fifteen minutes proves the
great potential of television in the field of education."
&>
Q £ >
Nearly forty years have passed and hardly anyone tooay w ould call the
electronic tube, "Mama’s best friend ”
-r
7
>7
oj
fc is d t h , F
>M
k k w
/
k
A
hU
.
/m :
/ n J 'k -d
U x.
't c .
V *-
fa y
CsrrrTvfZ'
Donahue, Oprah Winfrev ~rh« D
a laundrom at.............
•
,
, .
‘ ^
Phil
“ d
SOaP °P eras «o fill
fy d U i
5 V tu /
i*7 <
* / ? ir > 'k s
rrrL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
t—
IH
II
The problem is that public broadcasting is living on a starvation diet.
-------
Ninety percent of the children’s programming on public TV are reruns
(Palmer:46) and the 1984-85 season offered only 87.5 new programming horus
for children. By contrast, the BB airs about five hundred hours of children’s
TV each year. Surely, when it comes to caring for our children, we can do
better.
0
^
^ W
^
f a
y
c U ^
y
4
2
J
^
\m7 I
j^ jr s ^
^ jO v e r 200
™inerC1^
fer hiSh' sugar and high-fat junk food appear each
Saturday morning during cartoonsU g u LCenter for Sc.enceln the PubUc
t e r e s y ^ ^ A ^ ^ i the American Academy of Pediatrics called for a ban
on
l television
food adi&tlsements aimed at children. The fact that young
children cannot distinguish between ads and programs and the fact that ads
for high-sugar cereals (and junk food) lead to poor nutrition and obesity
triggered their concern. ' TT
,£u * NicKelodeorralso offers the ridiculous 'You Can’t Do That on
/V;
Television" where buckets of green slime regularly ooze down on the young
hosts, and "Double Dare," the children’s game show where teams compete in
edible jello molds and-toss^creain pies around ^^ickelodeorTis the only
children’s channel, making its programs generally more age-appropriate for
preschool audiences, but its efforts to be entertaining often overshadow any
Dommitment to be RrineationplJ^ £ *,>r'x<-
—
•■■■
ax .
T h e New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" and "Jim Henson’s Muppet
Babies" are considered above-parr for Saturday morning programs, which is
not saying much when the goal is to prepare children for school. Both ABC
be.
and CBS are planning weekend specials based on books to fiU the 12:30-1:00
p m . slot for the children who last that long. But far more lypical are "Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles," "Garfield and Friends." or "Slimer and the Real Ghost
Busters"—most of the animal and robot heroes featured In these programs also
can be found on cereal boxes and other commercial items. Most of these
cartoons are aimed at the widest audience possible----- and rarely cater to just
the preschool audience. The ^
l)
Sgpfieialfy,^ Harvard survey
revealed (1986) that 70 percent of those surveyed feel their children are
watching too much television, and 60 percent rate the job television is doing in
providing the public with information on children’s issues as only "fair" or
"poor." Forty percent believe that television has a negative effect on children.
And
a quarter of those surveyed said their family life is "centered around
TV." (Louis Harris)
;t a b h ^ >
1
4PyrrJuit*
“> 4.
-While being served snrh a depressing-diet.Jt’s hard for children tp
^separate TV images from real lifi6^Planned Parenthood re^enDv7oun£L lor^
y, that one-half (JfTeenagers surveyed thought television painted a
realistic picture of sex, including pregnancy and venereal disease. Weekly
Reader found that 57 percent of children believe what they hear and see on the
television screen.
But the damage goes deeper. The Uiiivtisity uf PeiUlijylvaiWij
T n l - m r i l r>f n n m m n n i P o t i m c x f l p n r f p H
th n t
wplnn u rn tn V i «,
televised violence see such behavior as & more useful solution tu personal
difficulties than those -w ho watch leoo violence. At Sweden’s Lund University,
Inga Sonesson, a sociologist, states the findings of her ten-year study of the
impact of television on children this way: "We found a clear and unmistakable
statistical correlation between excessive television and video viewing on the one
hand and the development of anti-social behavior and emotional problems on
the other." Among the report’s most surprising conclusions: Children of welleducated parents are just as likely to suffer as those of less intellectually
advantaged families.
Swedish researchers also found that six-year-olds who watched less than
two hours of television daily were far less likely to develop learning difficulties
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB.ELB/dmo), August 1. 1991
or emotional problems as they grew. Conversely, tots who saw two-and-a-half
hours or more of television every day were far more likely to develop such
troubles as they approached adolescence. These were the children who were
more aggressive, more anxious, and had greater problems maintaining
concentration."
Finally, the Swedish team asked teen-agers if they’d ever committed a
violent act against another person. Those who had were most frequently
children who had spent lots of time in front of the tube. Sonesson concludes
her study with the significant observation: "What this shows is not that
television viewing automatically leads to violent behavior, but, just as smoking
increases the risk of cancer, television increases the chance of children having
problems. The dangers are not as apparent, perhaps, but they’re real all the
same." (National Council on Families and Television)
Dr. Daniel Anderson from the University of Massachusetts analyzed forty
years of research into the impact television has on children. In testimony
before Congress, he declared: "Although there are questions about the degree,
there’s no question that television promotes violent behavior. Kids do absorb
messages from television shows, but that doesn’t make them good judges of the
messages they’re absorbing. Producers don’t see their programs as teaching
devices, but that is, in effect, what they are. Right now, they’re showing kids a
lot of violent behavior and that’s reflected in kids’ attitudes and outlooks."
Anderson also reported hn his study that, "There’s no real evidence to
support the popular idea that television makes kids dull. But there’s also none
to prove that it doesn’t." (Television and Families, Summer 1989, p. 2)
However, a Canadian study has now documented that "both children and
adults exposed to television suffered a 20 percent decrease in creativity. (As
7
^
^
^
r " r ^ f i ? / & & / * * * ) /2t* 1' ‘ ^
(7 p j *of p t j '
U w M J / «* s (jy j ^
Children at 25 day care centers and three homes in Lucas County, Ohi
were obsgrved as-they watched "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" three or more
i/uaj^
4
uM
times each week. Day care directors, teachers, and parents s«gges.ta distinct
a
link between viewing "Mister Rogers ^Neighborhood" and-rcportcd that thfe
/U A kt' j-^Ar 1m l .
tu i> k f/ ~ o, //
A v S v fax*children-were more cooperative,, more self-confident, more creative in their
•play, and-more competitive-te-work in groups after viewing Mister Rogers
Neighborhood. And-they wereSetter conversationalists because of the
AJ
knowledge they learned, more understanding, more cooperative and less
aggressive. Children’s verbal skills improved and they developed attitudes
about right and wrong, (a study conducted by the University of Toledo).
David Britt, President of the Children’s Television Workshop. In
testimony before a Senate committee declared: "Educational television works.
KTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB.ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
It reaches children, whether rich or poor, white or of color." (Senate Hearing
101-69, p. 55) And psychologist David Anderson added: Television can be in
fact an exceptionally effective tool for education. . . . Not only do children try to
understand TV, they learn from it. The evidence is growing . . . that they learn
vocabulary from television, and it is clear that well-produced educational
television indeed educates. Young viewers want to learn from television. In
fact, one of the most common reasons children give for watching TV is that
1/
they feel they learn things. (Senate hearing 101-69, p. 43)
But what is discouraging is the federal government’s complacency. In
1934, when the Federal Communication Commission was created, there was
much talk about how the airways belonged to the people and about how
television and radio should "serve the public good." In those days, the FCC
even contemplated allotting 25 percent of all broadcast licenses to nonprofit
\
organizations. In response to bold propaganda such as this, radio
broadcasters pledged to increase "public service" programming: they would
voluntarily meet their obligations to the public. Later, television executives
followed this lead, pledging to be mindful of the public’s interests.
Skeptics doubted that the self-monitoring approach would be sufficient
and pushed especially to have the interests of children more fairly represented.
In 1970 a vigorous advocacy group, Action for Children’s Television (ACT),
proposed that the Federal Communications Commission require at least
fourteen hours of children’s programming every week.
But after a four-year review of the proposal, the Commission opted, once
again, for "self-regulation," asking broadcasters to make a "meaningful effort"
to increase the quality of children’s programming. Here’s the way the
Commission stated their conclusion: ". , . we expect television broadcasters, as
A\
trustees of a valuable public resource, to develop and present programs which
y Teiesasien-bas great potential. It can spark curiosity, encourage reading,
and bring lis "information quickly. At its best, it can open up the world for
children, taking them to the moon or to the bottom of the sea. But the high
hopes many had for "television as a teacher" have been dashed, and the
current state of children’s television adds up to a shocking case of child
\peglect.
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
9
The teachers we heard from have no doubt that excessive TV viewing
makes children impatient, cuts the child’s attention span and reduces learning
to "impressions." One teacher with a master’s degree who has taught for
twenty years said: "My student’s today have a hard time formulating sentences
on paper and orally because they watch too much TV." Here’s how another
teacher put it: "I feel I have to tape dance to keep their interest. Just lecturing
is a sure groaner. Students just want to be passive viewers. It’s frustrating to
have to be ABC/CBS/NBC when I really want to be PBS and NPR! I teach at
an allegedly good high school where 75 percent go to college. Imagine what it
must be like elsewhere!"
A third teacher said that today’s kids have been raised on movies and
television and think all learning is simply fun and games. "[Learning is] pretty
dull stuff when you’re used to car chases, machine gun fights, and love scenes.
We have told kids from day one that going to school is a lot of fun. That if
you’re not having fun, then you’re not learning. That’s a lie! And anyone who
has ever been in school knows that it’s a lie. The fact of the matter is, learning
|\
requires work that can be quite a contrast to the ’A-Team’ and ’Family Ties’."
An English teacher in her mid-thirties, when asked to comment on the
pressures of her job, zeroed in on the impact television is having on her
students: "I honestly believe," she said, "that television is going to destroy this
country. We are raising a nation of mush minds. So many of these kids have
very little interest in learning! They sit and watch sex and violence on TV.
They think life is a sitcom show with a happy ending. I really think it’s a
cancer in this country, a bad cancer."
Television, which occupies so much of young children’s time can be a
powerful partner in the nation’s readiness to learn crusade. But for this to be
accomplished steps must be taken now. Fred-Roger-s has «ome-thoughts_on
the overall picture. Until change comes from within the industry, television will
continue-te- have a negative effect on children, family life, and human-
I he Children s lelevision Act ot 1990 requires the FCC to consider the
extent to which a station has "served the educational and informational needs
of children through the licensee’s overall programming, including programming
specifically designed to serve such needs." The legislation further defined
"educational television programming for children" as a program directed at
children 16 and younger and "which is designed for the intellectual
development of those children. . . ." Programs for a general audience that
might be viewed by a large number of children are not included in this
definition.
Beyond this, the FCC has been given the power to decide what the law
actually means and how it will be implemented. The FCC sent out a proposal
for rule-making in November and came to a final decision in April.
"Educational and instructional programming" has been defined as anything
that "furthers the positive development of the child," including cognitive,
intellectual, emotional, or social needs. The Commission did not set a
minimum on the amount of programming expected. Peggy Charren
complained, "It would have been hard for them to put together something th
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
is weaker on broadcasters share in educating children.” (Mark Walsh, "FCC
Adopts Final Rule on Children’s Television," Education Week. 17 April, 1991).
When the broadcast industry asked whether 30 and 60-second messages
(public service announcements) qualified as educational programming, the FCC
said "yes." Not a good start. Potentially, the FCC could re-license a station
that has merely added a PSA or two during an hour of cartoons. Full-length
programs might not even be required by the FCC in compliance with the
Children’s Television Act. "This determination awaits the clarity of a case
precedent developed as the result of a challenge to a station’s license renewal .
. ." according to Dale Kunkel. ("Crafting Media Policy: The Genesis and
Implications of the Children’s Television Act of 1990," p. 28)
Challenges to the broadcaster’s compliance to the new law can come
from (1) someone who aspireato offer superior service to the broadcaster
(better serve the puoiic interest; or (2) anyone who thinks the broadcasters has
neglected tenfulfill pulblic service obligations (such as meeting the educational
and instructional neeas of children). Action for Children’s Television has
created a guiae, "Choices for Children," that encourages parents to challenge
broadcasters if they do not offer neW programming. Stations must document
their efforts to/serve children and this information is available to the public.
Broadcasters must comply with the Children’s Television Act by October
1, 1991. Licensees applying for renewal who file as of February 1, 1992 must
demonstrate compliance. A few angry parents might block the re-licensing of a
local station. The FCC should establish a tough precedent early on and refuse
to re-license a station that has not increased the amount of educational
programs (rather than PSA’s).
' Tlie FCC nas a hisiory oi renewing 1licensee), unfortttnatclyT Do t -the
U M
M ^
Cs
^ rn m u & r, j
J\
^ Jlz*f
)»
I jU & r J
qJ
f 1^
jh
"
~
f iv r V
u cM fa fa ^~jt jX d v d l
A/
jy jA ^ u iij/
^
JAM, /U^ Ip )°)6$
pyv
--------
J~ ^ $ 4 e/
h^tA )j //■ ^
'h fcL %/- d ' JUJ(f in x Z s
TbQ
Y^J^t
I
k
0S
ih P
C o ^ e s s ^
, « X991 ^
^
^ te a minimum of $2°
IOP^
oWinent f o r c e s
* « W t ' 0nal *
EdUCaUOn
. g e m in a t e le a n * *
Thls would increase to $40
p a s t o r y o u »g
~*‘J¥wenty-milljfoA dollars' iJ^oughly what it cost the Children’s Television
\
Workshop to produce 65 episodes of "Ghostwriter," the program to air this fall
on PBS on writing for the post-"Sesame Street" crowd. In addition to the
production of the show itself, costs included research and outreach (wlial‘5 the
u s r of n g n a t uliuw if no
our
Knuwtj"SPOUL1LT). $S0 milAon for the Endowment
is enough to completely produce one new, quality program for preschoolers.
The money could easily be divided among a different number of production
efforts, also. ^
M m J^T(\
I r tt
(• jt s + f d ’
■>
/ k o b J jj
)
'y y t w lz ,
(L
M
L u fr O
L
C t^ r w
u jji/
J r\
7 rr^
I
/lrpn s
s (t
naua_
_
_
_
_
aren
piugimna.
The Children’s Television Act,
passed by Congress last fall, set the
limits on the amount of commer­
cials on children’s T V to. 1016 min­
utes an hour on weekends and 12
minutes an hour weekdays, and es­
tablished loose guidelines to
*
J
fT "
L
'p to J
)*
'a
^
~pc f jjr f r
v h J *
U
f j"
9u.
t^
'h fJ C
[ iU f VVy k is J u u
D >~
i
- h
t*
/ l/.
X r . L- _ n
,
A
Cm
M
js iKj
—
C t
C + jlL .
P~<£+J.
.
r
;
+ **The Cable Communications Act of 1984 allowed municipal governments
to require cable operators to designate channels for public, education, or
government use. These access channels vaiy in number and function from
community to community. Public access channels air any material presented
by citizens. Cities can review the material if there is too much for the allotted
time, but censorship is strictly forbidden. Some communities have had
problems with the KKK, among others, using this as an outlet to express ideas
clearly at odds with community values. But the smaller communities rarely
have such problems and anyone with the initiative and money to produce a
show is invited to air it on the public channel. Government access channels
can be used to inform viewers of events and programs within the city or to air
city council meetings.
ucation access channels, run by school districts, universities, or even
public libraries, generally serve the public schools. In Philadelphia, two
education access channels were set aside in each of the four franchises within
We afeo recommend every community should designate one of
its cable stations as a "Ready to Learn" channel that features
parent education and school readiness programming for
children.
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo). August 1, 1991
the city and are run by the school (even when different cable providers service
different parts of the city, all parts of the city have the same access channels).
Many communities are unable to fund these access channels, especially
with the fiscal,problems plaguing so many cities these days. When they are
used, theSte channels serve-the par&eular^ eeds ^ ^emmunities~ancLtbus vary
A?J
'fK U * * * Ur* ■
greatly in what they offer,, State involvement in cable television also vajies-rTn
Pennsyivania^legislatronhaSbeen Introduced that would deem cable a public
utility.and-feree- eable~operaiors to serve the "public interest,"- New York state
is the most involved in the state-level regulation of cable television. The New
York State Commission on Cable Television was established to ensure that
"municipalities and the state would benefit from valuable educational and
public services through cable television" and to ensure that access channels
were secured in all franchise agreements within the state. (New York State
Commission on Cable Television, 88-251, Docket no. 90174-a-2, p. 26.)
Simply finding out how communities are using their access channels is
difficult. Most are not using them to serve the preschool audience as far as
Reginald Carter at the^National Federation of Local Cable Programmers knows.
City govemments 'could certainly arrange for this in franchise
agreements. Production equipment is often provided by cable operators for the
public access channels. T h e \Ready to Learn" producers might use this
equipment, that of the government or education access channels, or their own,
depending upon the amount of m6pey available.
Another less desirable option tyould be to have the education access
channels, under the control of publici schools, libraries, and universities, start
serving preschoolers.
-tire connection should be made between the
various education institutions within the community (homes, preschools,
public schools, universities and community colleges). High school students
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo). August 1. 1991
could produce shows for young children for class or community service credit.
Community preschools and libraries provide the perfect setting for programs
(puppet shows, story hours). Shows might merely consist of tours of local
museums or businesses. Best of all, local children could become TV stars on
these local "Ready to Learn" and actually learn how television works^
In addition to offering programs for young children, the "Ready to Learn"
■^-aoeeos channel could provide parents with information about relevant services
in the community (provided at the children’s center) and fun spaces and places^
to visit with their children.
Cable access channels have pot yet been lost to the profit-motivated
broadcast and advertising industries. The channels don’t have any terrible
commercials, either. The potential of these channels to serve very specific
audiences is great but has Apt,Ibeen fully explored.
The National Federation of Local Cable Programmers and a private
consultant to local access channels are on the look out. Channel 8 in East
Brunswick, New Jersey is an education access channel run by the local library.
The library has produced a storytime series consisting of 30 tapes of a
community reading program. The channel (ALL of its programs) receives
$150,000 each year which is a lot for a community of East Brunswick’s size.
This program is not of the highest professional quality (producers try to tape
the storytime for 30 minutes, but the children often become inattentive and the
program ends up being only 20 or 25 minutes). But this is certainly an
example of what communities might do with very little money.
In the end, of course, television must be of family concern. Parents must
set boundaries for children. Some families have tried to abolish TV altogether.
Those who have had the "no-TV experiment" for a month are anywhere from
"enthusiastic" or "euphoric" about results. There was, they said, better
communication between children and adults, a closer feeling as a family, more
reading, more interesting conversations, and a more peaceful atmosphere. TV
viewing will, of course, go on and yet guidance is required. Family viewing,
with comment, should be encouraged. Children told us that occasionally they
17
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
do sit in front of the TV with parents in the evening, but there is very little
interaction. The messages command go without critique.
A parent’s critical viewing wiu*
children and some thoughtful pre-selection of certain programs probably have
the greatest potential for increasing the benefits of TV. s"\
Therefore, we recommend that every parent accept
responsibility to guide their child’s television viewing.
*
P&rents,siblings, and day care providers can, in fact, all influence the
program choices and viewing habits of young children. But that is not what’s
happening toq^y. In a survey of 66 parents of children ages 3 to 8, only fifteen
percent said they guide their children in selecting television programs. Only 38
percent reported discussing program content with their children frequently
though most comment about television occasionally in a casual manner.
According to these parents, 76 percent of their children regularly watch PBS.
This percentage was less (66 percent) among Hispanic children than children of
other ethnic groups (95 percent). Sixty-six percent of the parents used
television "often" as entertainment for their children, 44 percent as an
educational tool, and 22 percent as a "safe distraction," 14 percent as a reward,
and 12 percent as a lead-in to discussion.
KTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB.ELB/dmo). August 1, 1991
1
One of the most remarkable findings from this survey regarded children*
television program preferences. "These findings suggest that children prefer
PBS over commercial networks, but when children and parent view TV
together, they watch the commercial channels that the parent prefer."
Ironically, co-viewing (parent and child) may actually reduce the quality of the
programs children watch. ("Children’s Television-Viewing Habits and the
Family Environment, AJDC. vol. 144, March 1990, p.359.)
Wright, St. Peters, and Huston similarly found that "As children co­
viewed general audience programs with parents much more often than child
programs, it appears that children were influenced by parents’ tastes more
often than parents were influenced by children’s tastes." (Wright, St. Peters,
and Huston, p. 231)
Siblings, too, were found to watch television together and influence
program selection. "In general, the presence of older siblings led children to
abandon child-informative programs such as ’Sesame Street’ for cartoons and
comedies at a relatively young age." Some older siblings, on the other hand,
continued to watch programs meant for young children with their younger
brothers and sisters. (Wright, St. Peters, and Huston, Chapter 11 "TV and
Cognitive Skills and Social Behavior," p. 236.)
Parents might try what has been called 'TV Tum-OfF' times. Periods
when the television remains unplugged or families might establish rules
limiting the amount and content watched. (Marie Winn, Unplugging the PlugIn Drug)
Action for Children’s Television in "The TV-Smart Book For Kids" is a
calendar in which kids are encouraged to write in the programs they want to
watch after consulting the TV Guide. The book includes a "TV Report Card,"
asking children to evaluate the programs they watch. Questions, such as,
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
"Does it make sense to look at just any old think on TV?" are posed throughout
the calendar. Dr. Video lists his quick cure for TV blahs. The calendar also
includes puzzles and games about television. A guide for parents accompanies
"The TV-Smart Book For Kids" and poses questions that parents should answer
as they consider home television policies.
Barbara Lee and Masha Kabakow Rudman in Television: More Than a
Babv-Sitter suggest that parents should encourage children to create their own
television shows. 'With a little imagination, they can stretch the people they
know into the bigger-than-life characters who inhabit TV," the authors promise
parents. Children might enjoy predicting the outcome of television shows (and
thus become more engaged). During sports broadcasters, children might get a
kick out of turning off the volume and providing their own commentary.
Parents might use television programs as spring-boards for family discussions
about a variety of issues.
Further, we urge that The A ction for Children’s Television take
th e le a d in developing a ready to learn children’s guide
k
designating programs of special benefit to preschool families.
There are flashes of hope. "Reading Rainbow," one of the most
successful public television shows, introduces young readers to a book while
inserting footage about the setting and background of the s to r y / ^
^In the Fall of 1988 PBS aired a series called "Ramona," based on the
stories of award-winning children’s author Beverly Clearly. It got rave reviews
and a huge following. That same year WGBH Boston inaugurated a new series
of the best of children’s literature from foreign countries, Long Ago and Far
Away. In live-actor or animated cartoon formats, hosted by different actors on
the model of Masterpiece Theatre and designed as a show the whole family
could watch, the series received wide critical acclaim for sixteen productions
which included "The Pied Piper," "The Wind in the Willows," and Russian
folktales. Teachers deluged WGBH with requests for its published teachers’
guide.
"Shining Time Station" has been another-award winner for PBS. Action
For Children’s Television (ACT) described the shows as "basic life lessons gently
taught in an enchanted setting." (ACT Award, June 1990) Former Beatle
Ringo Starr plays the 18-inch conductor on this weekly program set in a
railroad station. Another PBS program, "Long Ago and Far Away," targets the
5-9 audience with its weekly half-hour series based on children’s stories.
PBS will also offer its local stations two new preschool programs next
season. "Barney and the Backyard Gang" will appear in April 1992. Barney is
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo). August 1, 1991
a great big purple dinosaur who has adventures in a day care playground and
classroom with his young friends. Two Dallas mothers on extended maternity
leave created the first Barney videos when they could not find programs
appropriate for their young children. Shari Lewis’ "The Lamb Chop Play-Along"
premieres in January, 1992. The show is designed to encourage viewers to
participate in the songs, counting, rhyming, and hopping along with Shari and
Lamb Chop.
"Barney and the Backyard Gang" and "The Lamb Chop Play-Along" both
received support from the CPB-PBS Program Challenge Fund. "Barney"
received $2.25 million and "Lambchop" received $1.08 million. In addition to
these grants, CPB has issued a request for the production of a new daily strip
of preschool programming. CPB has $4.5 million earmarked for this new
series, which must include at least 65 shows to start. The series would be
made available through PBS to local stations.
Shows distributed by PBS are often produced by companies specializing
in production, such as the Children’s Television Network ("Sesame Street"),
Family Communications, Inc. ("Mister Rogers Neighborhood"), or Great Plains
National ("Reading Rainbow"). But PBS also distributes shows originally
produced by local stations. Like commercial stations, local stations produce
their own shows to supplement those offered by PBS. WGBH in Boston, for
example started "Long Ago and Far Away" which now airs across the country.
Cable TV has allowed channels to focus more specifically on children and
families. Nickelodeon (a basic channel "just for kids") and The Disney Channel
(subscription required) offer the most preschool programs. Nickelodeon has a
two hour block each day, from 10:00 a.m. to noon, that features preschool
programs. "Eureeka’s Castle" starts it off with puppets, comedy, music and
adventure. "Sharon, Lois & Bram’s Elephant Show" allows viewers to leam
RTL-TV14.DOC. (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
along with an elephant during various adventures. "Fred Penner’s Place," a
series created by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, features Canadian
actor Fred Penner. He uses stories, songs and games to entertain and educate
his viewers.
The Disney Channel has a variety of children’s series. "Under the
Umbrella Tree" addresses everyday problems of preschoolers, such as using the
telephone and doorbell, sharing, and helping. 'You and Me Kid" deals with the
parent-child relationship and tries to get both to participate when watching.
Programs based on books, such as Winnie the Pooh. Babar. and Pinocchio.
make up much of Disney’s preschool line-up. Like Nickelodeon, Disney offers
very entertaining programs, but watching them is not necessarily going to
prepare young children for school.
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB.ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
2
KIDVIDZ TRIES TO MAKE UP FOR THE LACK OF QUALITY PROGRAMMING
ON TELEVISION WITH EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS FOR CHILDREN. SINCE
MOST VIDEOS ARE INTENDED FOR HOME USE AND CANNOT LEGALLY BE
SHOWN TO A LARGE AUDIENCE, KIDVIDZ ACQUIRES SPECIAL PUBLIC
PERFORMANCE RIGHTS ON ITS PACKAGES FOR VIDEOS THAT MAKES IT
POSSIBLE FOR SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS, LIBRARIES OR OTHER PUBLIC
ORGANIZATIONS TO USE THE PROGRAMS WITH A LEADER’S GUIDE, AND
50 ACTIVITY BOOKS. THE WHOLE PACKAGE IS ONLY $35. THE USE OF
ACTIVITY GUIDES ENCOURAGES THE INTEGRATION OF VIDEOS INTO THE
CURRICULUM AND MAKES TELEVISION/VIDEO A MORE ACTIVE ACTIVITY.
A LOW PRICE ALLOWS FOR MORE EXTENSIVE VIDEO COLLECTIONS.
Even the very realistic Peggy Charren sees some hope in videos (she’s
rather skeptical about most proposals for improving television since she
probably suggested them over the last 23 years). VCRs are available in more
and more homes. Parents who use videos aren’t limited to what’s offered at a
given time by broadcasters. ^
Libraries hay^jwdea collections already.
"Hffi AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION HAS A BROCHURE ENTITLED
"CHOOSING THE BEST IN CHILDRENS VIDEO" THAT LISTS EXCEPTIONAL
FILMS FOR FAMILIES, TEENS, OLDER CHILDREN, AND YOUNGER
CHILDREN. THE BROCHURE ALSO INCLUDES TIPS ON HOW TO CHOOSE
THE BEST VIDEOS. THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION WOULD MAKE
A GREAT ALLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND "READY TO LEARN"
VIDEO LIBRARIES IN EACH PUBLIC LIBRARIES OF CHILDRENS CENTERS.
UUillilUUtUU
ivs uuu
TM
h/w .
.
LV/1C
U
1U*
America’s ready to learn crusade simply cannot succeed without the
partnership of TV and perhaps June Healy, adjunct professor at Cleveland
State University Djbt the challenge best: "If our society wants children who can
come up witJ>5olutions to the problems of a complex world," she says, "we
shoulcj'tone down the electronics and tune up the brains."
Television can, if carefully guarded, be educationally enriching. But if
the nation’s children are to grow up well informed and emotionally secure, they
also must be encouraged to turn off TV from time to time and participate with
RTL-TV14.DOC, (PUB,ELB/dmo), August 1, 1991
29
confidence in the larger world. A parent’s critical viewing with children and
thoughtful pre-selection of programs probably have the greatest potential for
increasing the benefits of TV and assuring that all children will come to school
ready to learn.