Jason P. Nance and Professor Martin Kokol, Education

My intent when I sought after this scholarship was to use the funds to complete my honors thesis. After reading about many of the educational reform movements that are occurring in the United States, I decided to make educational reform the topic of my thesis. To make the paper more interesting, I wanted to personally interview someone who thought deeply about educational reform issues and someone whose ideas were well respected by educators. My advisor suggested that I interview Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, headquartered in Washington D.C.

After months of planning, Shanker’s secretary called me three days before our interview to inform me that Shanker had been hospitalized for cancer treatments. She did make arrangements, however, for me to interview Bella Rosenberg, Assistant to the President, and Greg Humphries, Head Treasurer. After I conducted these interviews in Washington D.C. three days later, Shanker returned from the hospital when I was in the office, and I was able to talk with him for a few minutes.

The results of these interviews and additional research were thought-provoking. Shanker and his advisors caused me to seriously think about how society could alter the public educational system to better educate students. However, as I continued to work on the thesis, I discovered that there was too much information on this topic to cover each aspect of educational reform adequately. I was therefore forced to change my thesis topic to something more manageable. I chose Channel One.

What is Channel One? Just ask any one of the eight million teenagers who watch it almost every day of the school year. Channel One is part of a program that Whittle Communications introduced into the public schools in the Spring of 1990. Whittle Communications provides the participating schools with $50,000 worth of technology including television monitors for each classroom, two VCR’S, a satellite dish, cable wiring to each classroom, and a 10 minute television news program designed specifically for teenagers. In exchange, the schools must agree to show two minutes of commercials that appear during the news program. So far, Whittle has been very successful. As of 1993, approximately 12,000 schools have entered into a contract with Whittle Communications. This means that over eight million students, 40% of the nation’s total population of 12-18 year olds, watch Channel One almost every day during the school year.

The question I had when I began the study was: Should public school educators sign a contract with Whittle Communications and agree to show Channel One to their students? Before responding to this question, I examined the issues that most advocates and opponents of Channel One have been arguing since Channel One first appeared in the public schools. The advocates asseverate that public schools should agree to the Whittle contract for basically three reasons. First, Whittle Communications agrees to provide $50,000 worth of technology to the schools that the schools would otherwise not have. Second, when the students watch the ten minute news program every day, their knowledge of current events increases which helps them to become better educated. Finally, commercialism is not new to the public schools, so what is two more minutes of commercials that the kids probably see at home anyway?

The opponents of Channel One have also voiced three basic reasons for their position. First, showing two minutes of commercials to the students in the public school system is ethically wrong. Second, the commercials that Channel One airs, which are not in harmony with what public schools want students to learn, do have a measurable effect on the students. Third, permitting a for-profit organization to show a news program every day to eight million students allows non-educators to determine the curriculum of 40% of the nation’s 12-18 year olds. To answer my question, I analyzed seventeen studies that focused on the effects of Channel One on students; one government document dealing with a hearing on Channel One, educational television, and technology; and fourteen articles found in journals and well respected education magazines. After analyzing these sources, I concluded that students would be better off if public schools did not sign a contract with Whittle Communications. The extent of this research is found in my completed thesis.

Although the information I obtained from the interviews did not directly relate to my final thesis topic, I believe that the time and money spent was not wasted. First, Shanker and his advisors caused me to think about education in ways that I had never thought before. Second, I gained first-hand experience on how to conduct a formal interview with a well respected educational figure. Third, the information I obtained could prove valuable in future studies that I will conduct.

The scholarship played a crucial role in my honors thesis and in my future. If I hadn’t received this scholarship, I do not believe that I would have attempted to graduate with honors at Brigham Young University, and I never would have written an honors thesis. Because of these experiences, I have discovered how exciting (and frustrating) research can be. This has encouraged me to work to eventually become an education professor where I can do educational research full time.

References

1. Jerome Johnston, Executive Summary of Channel One: A Three Year Perspective, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of 1
   Michigan (1994)
2. Whittle Communications was recently sold to K-111 Communications in 1995. See Drew Tiene and Evonne Whitmore, “TV or Not TV? 2
   That is the Question: A Study of the Effects of Channel One,” Social Education (February 1995) 159
3. Joel Rudinow, “Channel One Whittles Away at Education,”Educational Leadership (December 1989/January 1990) 70.
4. Johnston, Executive Summary of Channel One: A Three Year Perspective, 1.