Michael Morgan is letting people spread around his report on Channel
One--the loathsome Whittle enterprise that inflicts TV commercials on
schoolchildren. I'm happy to do some spreading. Morgan is a
communications prof at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and he
has already attracted a fair amount of media attention.
His report is of interest to community network folks since Washington is
often fond of touting "free enterprise" solutions as replacements for
meaningful action to help local communities. What applies to public
schools certainly would apply in the future to networking. Good
information policy doesn't happen by accident.
Within the Morgan report, a key section reads: "...Channel One is most
often found in schools with the largest proportions of low income,
underprivileged students, and in schools that have the least amount of
money to spend on conventional educational resources. Ironically,
these schools have more high-tech equipment, in no small part due to
Whittle Communications' own contributions, but they invest
substantially less in teachers, texts, or other instructional
materials. The relationship between spending on texts or other
instructional resources and accepting Channel One is especially
striking: Channel One is apparently used _instead of_ traditional
materials when resources are scarcest. Schools that can afford to
spend more on their students are _much_ less likely to utilize Channel
One."
In the next post, I'll comment further on the report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
[log in to unmask] the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Forwarded Message
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 01:17:47 -0400
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Prescott Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Subject: UNPLUG Channel One Report
Prof. Michael Morgan of the Dept. of Communication, Umass/Amherst,
provided the following information on the UNPLUG Channel One
Report and included a full copy. It's long and only the conclusion
is included here. I'll try to get the complete report up on the
anonymous ftp site at: nic.umass.edu cd /pub/ednet which is
also available by choosing the University of Massachusetts gopher.--ps
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescott Smith - Univ. of Mass/Amherst - [log in to unmask]
Ednet - a forum exploring the educational potential of the Internet
e-mail to: [log in to unmask] 1st line: Sub Ednet (Your Name)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pres,
[....]
The response to the press conference we held yesterday in DC has been
terrific. There was an "exclusive" in yesterday's Wall St Journal,
and it went out today on all the usual AP/UPI/NPR/etc wires. I've
been swamped doing press and radio interviews...
Anyway, I'm appending here a FULL COPY of the text and tables of my
Report, minus only the graphs and figures, for obvious reasons. Please
feel free to distribute this to anyone and everyone, or edit it to cut
it down as you see fit.
People may be interested in connecting with the sponsoring
organization, called UNPLUG; they have a very full packet of info they
can send out including my full report with graphs, plus highlights,
executive summary, fact sheets, press statements, etc. The phone
number at their temporary DC office is 202-234-0041. They also have
e-mail and fax but I don't have those here (but I can send them to you
when I go into my office on Friday). Let me know if you want their
fax number and/or e-mail address.
In the meantime, here's the text of my report; again, feel free
to distribute it in any form, far and wide, and let me know if I can
provide any further info.
=====================================================================
CHANNEL ONE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
WIDENING THE GAPS
Michael Morgan
Department of Communication
University of Massachusetts/Amherst
Phone: (413) 545-6345 / 1311
Fax: (413) 545-6399
Email: [log in to unmask]
A Research Report Prepared for UNPLUG
October, 1993
[....all the good design and sampling techniques deleted and much
also of enlightening analysis, description and explanation to cut
to the conclusion and data...ps]
Summary and Conclusion
Overall, schools that receive Channel One are mid-to-large sized
(but not _the_ most crowded) schools; they are slightly more likely
to be found in urban areas, but the reach of Channel One in
suburban and rural schools seems nearly as great. They are
slightly more likely to have higher proportions of African-
Americans, or to have a medium proportion of Latino students.
They are especially likely to be located in South Central,
Mountain, or South Atlantic states, rather than in New England or
the Pacific states.
Most of all, however, Channel One is most often found in schools
with the largest proportions of low income, underprivileged
students, and in schools that have the least amount of money to
spend on conventional educational resources. Ironically, these
schools have more high-tech equipment, in no small part due to
Whittle Communications' own contributions, but they invest
substantially less in teachers, texts, or other instructional
materials. The relationship between spending on texts or other
instructional resources and accepting Channel One is especially
striking: Channel One is apparently used _instead of_ traditional
materials when resources are scarcest. Schools that can afford
to spend more on their students are _much_ less likely to utilize
Channel One.
Given these patterns, the greater devotion to commercialism that
students apparently develop from watching Channel One is
particularly disturbing. That is, Channel One is more often
shown to the students who are probably least able to afford to
buy all the products they see advertised. It requires no stretch
of the imagination to suggest that this in turn may enhance their
alienation and frustration.
The commercialization of the culture -- and increasingly,
perhaps, of the schools -- means that other voices and interests,
less able to generate profits, are being shut out of the
educational system. It seems inevitable that Channel One will
further entrench and legitimize the power of massive private
commercial interests in those public arenas where a diversity of
voices is most badly needed.
The results from a new four-year study, just released by the
Department of Education, sound similar to so many others we have
become accustomed to hearing about, but these are more shocking
than usual: according to the report, almost half the nation's
adults have low reading comprehension and math skills. Worse,
the study points to increasing divisions in society between the
haves and the have-nots, based on poverty and racial/ethnic
status. Low income students and youth of color attend schools
most in need of a substantial infusion of resources. These are
the same schools that give their students Channel One instead,
creating the illusion of providing more and better educational
facilities. In this way, Channel One may be helping to widen an
already dangerous gap in our society.
REFERENCES
Arana, Ana, and Aleta Watson. "Channel One used ethnic divisions
to win customers." San Jose Mercury-News, Dec. 13, 1992.
"Dumber Than We Thought." Newsweek, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 44.
Greenberg, Bradley S., and Jeffrey E. Brand. "Television News
and Advertising in Schools: The 'Channel One' Controversy."
Journal of Communication, Winter 1993, 43:1, 143-151.
Osborn, Barbara. "Critiquing Channel One: Billerica Middle
Schools." The Independent, August/September 1993, pp. 44-45.
Ouellette, Laurie. "Whoops for Whittle Communications" and
"Deconstructing Channel One." Mediaculture, The Advocate,
Sept. 2, 1993, p. 6. (Syndicated via Alternet News Service,
Aug. 19, 1993.)
Tiene, Drew. "Channel One: Good News or Bad News for our
Schools?" Educational Leadership, May 1993, pp. 46-51.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHANNEL ONE
Number of Number of Percent of Percent of
Schools in Schools with Schools with Schools in
Sample Channel One Channel One Category
---------- ------------ ------------- -----------
OVERALL 17344 4572 26.36% 100.00%
School Type:
Elementary 1759 400 22.74% 10.14%
Middle 4547 1214 26.70% 26.22%
Jr Hi 2156 600 27.83% 12.43%
Sr Hi 6867 1817 26.46% 39.59%
Combined 703 158 22.48% 4.05%
Voc/Tech 424 153 36.08% 2.44%
Special 625 171 27.36% 3.60%
Adult 263 59 22.43% 1.52%
School Level:
K-8 1759 400 22.74% 10.14%
K-12 703 158 22.48% 4.05%
5-8 4547 1214 26.70% 26.22%
7-9 2156 600 27.83% 12.43%
7-12 1088 337 30.97% 6.27%
9-12 5209 1286 24.69% 30.03%
10-12 570 195 34.21% 3.29%
Voc/Tech 424 153 36.08% 2.44%
Special 625 170 27.20% 3.60%
Adult 263 59 22.43% 1.52%
School Enrollment:
1-99 993 267 26.89% 5.73%
100-199 1054 234 22.20% 6.08%
200-299 1305 310 23.75% 7.52%
300-499 2961 902 30.46% 17.07%
500-999 6675 1855 27.79% 38.49%
1000-2499 4085 956 23.40% 23.55%
2500+ 271 48 17.71% 1.56%
District Enrollment:
<599 707 51 7.21% 4.08%
<1199 1344 308 22.92% 7.75%
<2499 2275 769 33.80% 13.12%
<4999 2219 641 28.89% 12.79%
<9999 1746 491 28.12% 10.07%
<24999 3096 879 28.39% 17.85%
25K + 5957 1433 24.06% 34.35%
Number of Schools in District:
1 420 51 12.14% 2.42%
2-4 2920 754 25.82% 16.84%
5-9 3019 857 28.39% 17.41%
10-24 2721 736 27.05% 15.69%
25-99 5397 1516 28.09% 31.12%
100 + 2867 658 22.95% 16.53%
Spending on All Instructional Materials:
<44.99 197 96 48.73% 1.14%
<54.99 234 110 47.01% 1.35%
<64.99 476 168 35.29% 2.75%
<74.99 1053 332 31.53% 6.08%
<79.99 706 196 27.76% 4.07%
<84.99 1111 407 36.63% 6.41%
<89.99 768 167 21.74% 4.43%
<94.99 919 288 31.34% 5.30%
<99.99 945 356 37.67% 5.45%
<109.99 2462 781 31.72% 14.21%
<119.99 1642 354 21.56% 9.47%
<129.99 1858 289 15.55% 10.72%
<139.99 1173 309 26.34% 6.77%
<149.99 1065 312 29.30% 6.15%
<159.99 606 107 17.66% 3.50%
<169.99 487 75 15.40% 2.81%
<179.99 389 50 12.85% 2.24%
<189.99 277 45 16.25% 1.60%
<199.99 233 22 9.44% 1.34%
200 + 729 106 14.54% 4.21%
Text Expenditures:
<9.99 114 77 67.54% 0.66%
<12.99 97 28 28.87% 0.56%
<15.99 238 101 42.44% 1.37%
<18.99 673 136 20.21% 3.88%
<21.99 1017 297 29.20% 5.87%
<24.99 1329 339 25.51% 7.67%
<27.99 1433 325 22.68% 8.27%
<30.99 1786 456 25.53% 10.31%
<33.99 1319 225 17.06% 7.61%
<36.99 1258 372 29.57% 7.26%
<39.99 963 311 32.29% 5.56%
<44.99 2811 824 29.31% 16.22%
<49.99 1361 459 33.73% 7.85%
<54.99 761 167 21.94% 4.39%
<59.99 609 184 30.21% 3.51%
<64.99 438 64 14.61% 2.53%
<69.99 287 28 9.76% 1.66%
<74.99 276 72 26.09% 1.59%
75+ 558 105 18.82% 3.22%
Total Combined Expenditures:
<2599 238 144 60.50% 1.37%
<2799 417 251 60.19% 2.41%
<2999 599 249 41.57% 3.46%
<3199 794 388 48.87% 4.58%
<3399 893 260 29.12% 5.15%
<3599 1410 563 39.93% 8.14%
<3799 1634 461 28.21% 9.43%
<3999 1752 438 25.00% 10.11%
<4199 1104 291 26.36% 6.37%
<4399 1193 215 18.02% 6.88%
<4599 1337 216 16.16% 7.71%
<4799 1086 111 10.22% 6.27%
<4999 512 213 41.60% 2.95%
<5199 683 127 18.59% 3.94%
<5399 512 186 36.33% 2.95%
<5599 506 196 38.74% 2.92%
<5799 331 7 2.11% 1.91%
<5999 254 35 13.78% 1.47%
<6000+ 2075 219 10.55% 11.97%
Region:
New England 739 78 10.55% 4.26%
Mid Atlan. 1677 360 21.47% 9.67%
So Atlan. 3298 1001 30.35% 19.02%
No Central 4906 1132 23.07% 28.29%
Mountain 1150 410 35.65% 6.63%
So Central 3282 1418 43.21% 18.92%
Pacific 2292 173 7.55% 13.21%
Metro status:
Urban 5709 1558 27.29% 33.09%
Suburban 4328 1145 26.46% 25.09%
Rural 7216 1849 25.62% 41.82%
Poverty Level:
<5% 2526 420 16.63% 14.82%
5-25% 11749 3054 25.99% 68.93%
25% + 2770 1044 37.69% 16.25%
Percent African-American:
<1 % 5525 1424 25.77% 34.42%
1-25 % 6208 1746 28.13% 38.67%
>25 % 4319 1255 29.06% 26.91%
Percent Latino:
<1 % 8105 2163 26.69% 50.49%
1-25 % 5952 1798 30.21% 37.08%
>25 % 1995 464 23.26% 12.43%
Percent Asian:
<1 % 10702 3989 37.27% 66.67%
1-25 % 5060 424 8.38% 31.52%
>25 % 290 12 4.14% 1.81%
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE AND UNIVERSE
All Potential
Responding Schools Target Schools
-------------------- --------------------
N of Percent in N of Percent in Response
Schools Category Schools Category Rate
------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------
OVERALL 17344 100.00% 36359 100.00% 47.70%
School Type:
Elementary 1759 10.14% 4811 13.23% 36.56%
Middle 4547 26.22% 8432 23.19% 53.93%
Jr Hi 2156 12.43% 3717 10.22% 58.00%
Sr Hi 6867 39.59% 14064 38.68% 48.83%
Combined 703 4.05% 2844 7.82% 24.72%
Voc/Tech 424 2.44% 1033 2.84% 41.05%
Special 625 3.60% 995 2.74% 62.81%
Adult 263 1.52% 463 1.27% 56.80%
School Level:
K-8 1759 10.14% 4811 13.23% 36.56%
K-12 703 4.05% 2844 7.82% 24.72%
5-8 4547 26.22% 8432 23.19% 53.93%
7-9 2156 12.43% 3717 10.22% 58.00%
7-12 1088 6.27% 2911 8.01% 37.38%
9-12 5209 30.03% 10184 28.01% 51.15%
10-12 570 3.29% 971 2.67% 58.70%
Voc/Tech 424 2.44% 1031 2.84% 41.13%
Special 625 3.60% 995 2.74% 62.81%
Adult 263 1.52% 463 1.27% 56.80%
School Enrollment:
1-99 993 5.73% 3005 8.26% 33.04%
100-199 1054 6.08% 3441 9.46% 30.63%
200-299 1305 7.52% 3813 10.49% 34.23%
300-499 2961 17.07% 7205 19.82% 41.10%
500-999 6675 38.49% 12331 33.91% 54.13%
1000-2499 4085 23.55% 6189 17.02% 66.00%
2500+ 271 1.56% 375 1.03% 72.27%
District Enrollment:
<599 707 4.08% 5225 14.37% 13.53%
<1199 1344 7.75% 3822 10.51% 35.16%
<2499 2275 13.12% 5811 15.98% 39.15%
<4999 2219 12.79% 5656 15.56% 39.23%
<9999 1746 10.07% 4577 12.59% 38.15%
<24999 3096 17.85% 4710 12.95% 65.73%
25K + 5957 34.35% 6558 18.04% 90.84%
Schools in District:
1 420 2.42% 3245 8.92% 12.94%
2-4 2920 16.84% 8829 24.28% 33.07%
5-9 3019 17.41% 7914 21.77% 38.15%
10-24 2721 15.69% 7330 20.16% 37.12%
25-99 5397 31.12% 6053 16.65% 89.16%
100 + 2867 16.53% 2988 8.22% 95.95%
Spending on All Instructional Materials:
<44.99 197 1.14% 513 1.42% 38.40%
<54.99 234 1.35% 490 1.36% 47.76%
<64.99 476 2.75% 993 2.75% 47.94%
<74.99 1053 6.08% 1822 5.04% 57.79%
<79.99 706 4.07% 1206 3.34% 58.54%
<84.99 1111 6.41% 1811 5.01% 61.35%
<89.99 768 4.43% 1519 4.20% 50.56%
<94.99 919 5.30% 1741 4.82% 52.79%
<99.99 945 5.45% 1904 5.27% 49.63%
<109.99 2462 14.21% 4347 12.03% 56.64%
<119.99 1642 9.47% 3459 9.57% 47.47%
<129.99 1858 10.72% 3392 9.38% 54.78%
<139.99 1173 6.77% 2690 7.44% 43.61%
<149.99 1065 6.15% 2135 5.91% 49.88%
<159.99 606 3.50% 1407 3.89% 43.07%
<169.99 487 2.81% 1228 3.40% 39.66%
<179.99 389 2.24% 991 2.74% 39.25%
<189.99 277 1.60% 800 2.21% 34.63%
<199.99 233 1.34% 612 1.69% 38.07%
200 + 729 4.21% 3087 8.54% 23.62%
Region:
New England 739 4.26% 1810 4.98% 40.83%
Mid Atlan. 1677 9.67% 3974 10.93% 42.20%
So Atlan. 3298 19.02% 4921 13.53% 67.02%
No Central 4906 28.29% 10542 28.99% 46.54%
Mountain 1150 6.63% 2542 6.99% 45.24%
So Central 3282 18.92% 7667 21.09% 42.81%
Pacific 2292 13.21% 4903 13.48% 46.75%
Metro status:
Urban 5709 33.09% 7676 21.23% 74.37%
Suburban 4328 25.09% 7720 21.35% 56.06%
Rural 7216 41.82% 20760 57.42% 34.76%
Poverty Level:
<5% 2526 14.82% 5492 15.57% 45.99%
5-12 5384 31.59% 11112 31.50% 48.45%
12-25 6365 37.34% 13019 36.91% 48.89%
25% + 2770 16.25% 5650 16.02% 49.03%
Percent African-American:
<1 % 5525 34.42% 14204 44.66% 38.90%
1-5 2542 15.84% 4983 15.67% 51.01%
5-25 3666 22.84% 6158 19.36% 59.53%
25% + 4319 26.91% 6463 20.32% 66.83%
Percent Latino:
<1 % 8105 50.49% 17353 54.56% 46.71%
1-5 3225 20.09% 5973 18.78% 53.99%
5-25 2727 16.99% 4876 15.33% 55.93%
25% + 1995 12.43% 3606 11.34% 55.32%
Percent Asian:
<1 % 10702 66.67% 23081 72.56% 46.37%
1-5 3469 21.61% 5825 18.31% 59.55%
5-25 1591 9.91% 2498 7.85% 63.69%
25% + 290 1.81% 404 1.27% 71.78%
Percent White:
<1 % 847 5.28% 1192 3.75% 71.06%
1-5 425 2.65% 692 2.18% 61.42%
5-25 1231 7.67% 1901 5.98% 64.76%
25% + 13549 84.41% 28023 88.10% 48.35%
========================================================================
========================================================================
I hope this is useful.
Cheers,
- - Michael
- --
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Michael Morgan * /\/\ /\/\ * [log in to unmask] |
| Department of Communication, UMass/Amherst, MA 01003 USA |
| 413-545-1311 (dept) * 413-545-6345 (office) * 413-545-6399 (fax) |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
------- End of Forwarded Message
