Page images

the money spent on them. We are familiar with the experience of purchasing educational technology through title III of the National Defense Education Act; we know all too well how easy it is for hundred dollar projectors, thousand dollar video recorders and $10,000 language laboratories to end up unused, tucked away in some musty basement where they are ignored by teacher, student, and administrator alike.

What will teachers think about new mechanical and electronic devices? What classroom rituals are to replace the present ones so that the thrill of movies or the immediacy of television can take their place in the repertoire of educational methods?

When we know the answer to those questions, how are we to get those answers to teachers in the classrooms? And where innovative teachers in local schools experiment and find ways of turning their students on to new ways of learning with the new media of education, how are we to get those teachers in touch with the manufacturers, with the decisionmakers for education and with other teachers?

I think we can all appreciate how complicated is the problem to which we are addressing ourselves during these hearings. You will observe that I have not even alluded to some of the knotty riddles presented by questions of copyright, of compatability of audiovisual mechanical systems, of payment of authors of software, of interfacing classroom audiovisual material and with such open-circuit systems as the television networks.

As a number of you in this room know, our subcommittee has also before it legislation recommended by the President to create a National Institute of Education to serve as a central focal point in the Federal Government for the support and stimulation of research and development in education. Many of the questions to which I have just alluded must be on the agenda of the proposed National Institute of Education. So as we consider the educational technology bill, which is our purpose this morning, we must have in mind the relevance of this proposal to the other legislation to which I have made reference. I think it is perhaps a happy circumstance that this subcommittee should be at one and the same time considering both educational technology and the National Institute of Education.

The Chair would also like to say that, although we shall continue for some time to look at both NIE and educational technology legislation, this morning we are going to concentrate our attention on the latter. Mr. Eldon Campbell, a professional broadcaster, is concerned about the importance of taking advantage of the educational potential of open-circuit television working with classroom teachers. Mr. Howard Hitchens and Mr. Sargent Carleton are, with somewhat different emphasis, concerned with enabling the teacher to utilize the new technologies in the classroom as effectively as possible. Dr. Joseph B. Margolin and Miss Marion Misch are particularly expert on the subject of the application of computers to the classroom and the even broader question of the utilization of technology in education. So we look forward with great interest to hearing what you have to say.

Our first witness is Mr. Eldon Campbell, vice president and general manager of WFBM-TV, from Indianapolis.

Mr. Campbell, we are pleased to hear you.


Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, which is in your file and I am not going to abuse your patience by reading it verbatim. Mr. BRADEMAS. We are grateful.

Mr. CAMPBELL. But I would like for it to be the official statement that I have made.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection, yours and Mr. Stanley's and Mr. Kischner's statements will be included in the record and perhaps you could just summarize for us, Mr. Campbell.

(The statements referred to follow :)


May I take just a moment to thank the members of this committee for granting me the opportunity to speak with you concerning the role of commercial television as an educational force in today's primary and secondary schools. We all know that commercial television as a means of mass communications has been under attack from all sides for both sins of commission and omission. Perhaps the largest problem facing all of us is our inability to reorient and reevaluate our own preconceived notions of what constitutes valued mass communications. In what form can we digest it and in what manner does it become democratically harnessed for its public interest responsibility and servant role? In the February 1971 issue of The Instructor, page 51, the opportunity and the dilemma is outlined realistically. In the past ten years, several personal experiences in my position as Vice President and General Manager of a major broadcast facility in the city of Indianapolis have served to both confound and confront my otherwise simple overview of my personal responsibilities as a citizen and professional broadcaster. I trust you will bear with me to the extent I can articular a couple of them. The others would be redundant although interesting and revealing.

Approximately ten years ago, I was invited by the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce to engage in their annual Businessmen's Visitation Day. This had been a long-time, ongoing program of the Chamber and the Metropolitan School systems whereby businessmen became acquainted with the structure and substance of classroom teaching. One of the classes which I visited was at the fifth grade level, taught by a young man who, upon hearing of my professional and business background, contorted his face and clipped his conversion with unashamed hostility. I think I read correctly into what he did and did not say, the fact that as a classroom teacher he resented the competition of television for his students' attention. After the brief introduction he did proceed with his class and at the conclusion of the subject for the day, turned to me, introduced me to the young people, and asked if I had any questions of them. Given the opportunity, I said, "Yes, I have two." The first was, how many of the class had, on the immediate past Sunday seen a program called "Hemo the Magnificent." You could imagine my reaction and that of the teacher when better than 90 per cent of the classroom not only raised their hands but practically, through excitement, stood at the side of their desks. And now for my second question I asked, "Would one of you young people like to tell me what the program was about?" One little girl didn't wait a second to be called upon. She blurted out that the program was about the heart, the lungs and the circulatory system. I turned to the teacher and said, "My questions have been answered and I have nothing further to say."

Mind you, that happened ten years ago and it would be far less likely to occur today, but there is considerable residual uneasiness about this competitor for children's time and attention. One terribly expensive consequence is a reluctance

to recognize just how much both teacher and student can gain from their joint utilization of the many programs that deal with history, the physical sciences, government, social science, literature and the arts. I do not propose that unrestricted viewing will be filled with nothing but the preceding menu. I do suggest that planned interface can produce meaningful utilization by students and teachers.

The other incident I would like to recount for you is one which occurred on Sunday, July 20, 1969. Around midnight on that date, Neil Armstrong set foot upon the moon. A great deal of time had already been devoted to the launching of Apollo 11, tracing its journey through space and arriving at the moment which preceded man's most historic modern experience. In our area of the country, there had been a raging rainstorm and, within hours, an unfortunate incident with high emotional overtones had occurred on a bridge at Chappaquiddick Island. For better than fourteen years, we at WFBM have kept daily track of all of the telephone calls made to us by listeners and viewers and on this particular Sunday it is interesting to note the following sequence of telephoned reactions. During the early part of the day, nearly 50 people called with respect to the weather, the possible imminence of personal danger and the curiosity of what had happened to others. By midday, the usual number of lost and found pet telephone calls had been received and dispatched. But the clue of what was to come came about noon by a caller who said:

"Are there going to be any regular programs on any of the stations today?" This was just the warmup. Such additional questions came in the afternoon of July 20 with frequency and with varying types of concern. "When will they land on the moon?" "Are the moon men really on the moon?" By 6:00 p.m., just about six hours before the real event would happen, one caller put her finger precisely on the dilemma of television, commercial television broadcasting and society. A very articulate, mature woman's voice said: "Is that space thing going to last clear through Bonanza?" When she got an affirmative answer, she then said: "Oh, dear me, I'll have to go to bed without seeing my favorite program." But that wasn't all. One caller wanted to know if we were going to play the as scheduled program, Huckleberry Finn. Someone else wanted to know the number of NASA at Houston, the reason being there weren't any black people being interviewed on the Apollo 11 program and he wanted the matter remedied by us immediately. By 9:00 p.m., the time for the beginning of Bonanza on the normal Sundays of the year, a really very interested person wanted to know how we could cut out a football game and local news for the damn moon picture. The calls were now in the hundreds, some honestly interested in what was about to happen and most of them saying:

"Why don't you put your regular programming on, we're sick of this moon stuff." Or how about this one: "I hate to be a complainer but why do we have to give up our regular programs for this stuff? Don't you think they're carrying it too far? When are they going to take that junk off and put the movie on?" By now it's midnight. Neil Armstrong is on the moon and one of the earliest telephone calls came from a viewer who said, "That man really isn't on the moon is he? Did they take a television cameraman along?"

But the matter of Neil Armstrong's moon walk had scarcely concluded before we were receiving calls on the subject of Chappaquiddick. And diplomacy suggests that I cover that matter by saying that we had nearly a dozen pages on legal sized paper, numerically tabulating the telephone calls from viewers, many disagreeable and with ghoulish things to say about the way television was handling the unfortunate situation. These kind of high emotional moments in the last decade for commercial television broadcasters tell me two things: (1) It is almost impossible for the American public to digest all the opportunity for knowledge they are being offered, assuming they wanted knowledge in the first place. But most important, and the reason I am here, (2) a great educational opportunity is being denied so many of our students because a valuable and universally available resource is being left unused except by a very small percentage of the teachers to whom it is available.

Certainly, members of this Select Subcommittee are fully aware that children of school age spend hours each day watching television. They like it! It's their medium! They have grown up with it! And they don't watch only children's programs, by any means. Furthermore, we know that when they are asked by their teachers to watch "real" television-and by that, youngsters mean other than instructional television-they are more apt to think of the assignment as something that recognizes the values of their world.

The challenge is to put two phenomena-the fondness of youngsters for television and the availability of informational cultural programming to work in the cause of education. How can we do this quickly, effectively, inexpensively and throughout the learning years?

Some three years ago the Television Information Office, an affiliate of the National Association of Broadcasters, created the first of an annual two-part series of a printed pamphlet known as the "Teachers Guides to Television." Samples of the guide have been provided with each copy of this statement. There are, I am told, approximately two million teachers for whom these guides would serve an extremely beneficial purpose. At the end of three years and six issues. I am distressed to tell you that far too small a number of schools and teachers— many of them repeat subscribers have been able or willing to spend $1.50 per copy for these Guides. This is, at best, a less than modest move toward augmenting teaching effectiveness, harness the power of television to influence the young, and excite the students of this country with the worthwhile broadcasting opportunities which do exist in great numbers.

We know some of the reasons progress has been slow in extending the distribution of the Guides and we can surmise others. I mention the reluctance of some teachers we really don't know how many-to turn to this outside resource, commercial television. From personal contacts, the staffs of the Television Information Office and of Teachers Guides to Television have learned of crippling shortages of funds for new educational software. The shortage of dollars hits at all levels. We know of a major city school system whose superintendent is eager 'to provide Guides for all his teachers. And there are schools that need Guides for each classroom but find they must share one issue among twenty or thirty teachers.

And there is, of course, the mammoth job of bringing to the educational community the basic information about the Guides themselves. It has been beyond the resources of either of these organizations.

What has kept the two staffs at their job for three years? Quite simply, it has been the enthusiastic response of those educators, both administrators and teachers who have learned of the Guides, have used them and have found them excellent. With the material submitted to you, you will find such evidence. I am told that these Guides observe all the criteria which any legitimate curriculum or review committee might utilize for materials at any level of classroom teaching. Here are two short comments in support of that judgment. The first is from William J. Ellena, Deputy Executive Secretary of the American Association of School Administrators. On seeing the first issue of the Guides. he said, "If this and future Guides are used effectively by teachers, then I am firmly convinced that the quality of instruction will be improved immeasurably." Later, Fred T. Wilhelms, Executive Secretary of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development had this to say, "The programs you have selected and the material you have assembled just make my mouth water." From teachers who have used the Guides come optimistic evaluations which encourage the Television Information Office to continue its support of the Guides. The teachers have responded willingly and almost unanimously in praise of the Guides, both as a concept and as a working tool in the classroom.

Now, I would like to specifically refer to the first two pages of the Spring 1971 semester guide. On the left-hand page, it recounts over 30 programs presented by all four of the national television networks of this country, that is three commercial services and one public service. It gives the time, the date and the network as well as the title and a one-line summation of the program. On the right-hand page, is a list of the advisors, many names of which would be familiar to this committee. Edward Stanley, the Guides' publisher and his editor, Gloria Kirshner, have credentials widely recognized in the educational community. Further, on the right-hand page begins a listing of the some twelve programs which have been selected this semester as outstanding examples of programs at various age levels for viewing and use as classroom exercises in learning. You will note the titles. "Dragons of the Galapagos"; "John and Julie (Children's Film Festival"; "Jane Eyre": "Gideon"; "The Record Makers"; "Young People's Concert"; "Here Comes Peter Cottontail"; "National Polling Day: What Americans Think"; "West Side Story"; "Adventure in the High Arctic": "AAU Championships"; "Discovery Visits Belgium." Each of these programs has a complete guide constructed for the use of the teachers in stimulating class preparation for viewing and classroom participation after viewing has been accomplished. To state the matter simply, this is my judgment is an outstanding example of embracing the great value of commercial television to the benefit of the teaching

science, rather than condemning the entire instrument as a combatant and hostile force in all society. It is almost naive to repeat the age old truth that nothing in man's society has been discovered as perfect, and that includes education as well as television.

It is also a concomitant truism that in all things there is value, if we are only smart enough to recognize, utilize, and gain by it. It is my hope that this committee will seriously review the Teachers Guide to Television as it now exists, appreciate the effort of the Television Information Office to engage the mature attention of the various formal educational forces extant today and consider with the commercial television industry in this country, the ways which this kind of implementation can be made available to the widest number of teachers and in turn to their students. The whole cause of improving television, selective viewing and democratic appreciation for one another would be served well, in my judgment, if this kind of an instrument in its totality was to be cooperatively harnessed by government and the commercial television industry. I leave to you, our congressional representatives, to find the most feasible way of accomplishing this purpose. In this way, all of society would be a beneficiary rather than ignored in the crossfire of misunderstanding, ignorance and raging and threatening language.

I would now be glad to answer any questions on this matter and with your permission, engage the assistance of Mr. Roy Danish, the Director of the Television Information Office and Mr. Edward Stanley, Publisher, and Mrs. Gloria Kirshner, the Editor of the Teachers Guides for Television.


We appreciate very greatly the Committee's interest in the Teachers Guides to Television project.

We felt it would be useful to the Committee to have a brief synopsis of the origins and development of Teachers Guides to Television, the philosophy which motivates us and a view of the great service which can be given at very small cost to the American teaching community, to its over 50 million pupils and to their parents.

This project grows out of our experience with Exploring, a highly successful educational program for children which was produced at. NBC under the supervision of Mr. Stanley, who was then Director of Public Affairs for the network. The program was built around the elementary school curriculum and its success with teachers has not so far been surpassed. To make the program more useful to the classroom teacher, Teachers Guides were prepared as a teacher would prepare a lesson plan and were made available without cost, upon request. These Guides were written exactly as the present Guides are written, with teaching suggestions before and after viewing, suggested activities and a brief synopsis of the program.

Direct mail experts had told us that a return of 21⁄2 per cent from our mailing to the then 70,000 elementary principals would be very good, and that a greater response would be a brilliant success. Within four weeks we had requests for 250,000 copies of the Guides, and when the program and the service were conducted, over 625,000 elementary teachers (more than one out of every two elementary teachers in the country) were receiving the Guides on request. Requests were arriving at the rate of 25.000 a week. Independent research by Millard Research Associates in 6,000 classrooms in six major cities established that 86 per cent of the teachers receiving the Guides were making use of them, and an NBC survey found that more than half of the teachers saved or shared their Guides. Even today, seven years later, requests to be "put back on the list" are still received.

It seemed obvious to us that we were providing a much-wanted service to the nation's teachers and that they were very much aware of television and concerned with its teaching potential. We looked for a way to provide such a service to them covering all the networks and, when Mr. Stanley became available, we entered into discussions with the Television Information Office of the NAB. We wish to thank them, and particularly Mr. Roy Danish, TIO's director, for support and assistance.

It may be asked why a television program becomes so much more useful if a teacher has a Guide, a lesson plan. In the first place, a teacher rarely has information about a program far enough in advance, nor the time available at short notice to do the research-including a bibliography and a listing of related films-that preparation of a good lesson plan requires. Teachers Guides to Tele

« PreviousContinue »