Channel One: Marketing in Our Classrooms

If you stepped inside the classroom of one of 12,000 schools across the U.S. you might see a glimpse of Channel One. (Metrock, J. 2004) This program is brought into the classroom under the illusion of current event television. It is a 12 minute program consisting of up to date news around the globe complete with interviews and highlights. It is meant to enhance the learning experience for the students by providing up to date information in an entertaining format. If the program itself were all that consisted of the broadcast than there would be few people who would oppose the use of this learning method. The controversy lies however, in the commercials that follow the program. These commercials are directed at the 8 million students who watch the program daily and advertise products ranging from skin care products to MP3 players. It is a marketing strategy of vast proportions, tapping into the young adult market who are known for having the majority of the disposable income of any other age group.

Though it is important to realize that Channel One has to have some sort of financial backing for their services, which include free service for the schools and free multimedia equipment, we have to think about what the cost is to the learning environment of our schools. How much is our children’s time worth? Is it fair to further subject our children with the constant barrage of marketing ploys they have to experience in so many other activities? How much do they actually learn through Channel One’s broadcast? What does this say about the state of our schools when they have to resort to outside sources to provide the much needed multimedia equipment for the schools?

In the next few paragraphs we will look at some of the major concerns of the Channel One program and discuss the pro’s and con’s of this modern day classroom technique. We will hear some of the arguments from both sides of the issue and hopefully we will end up with the means to make an informed decision about this program for ourselves.

Channel One was created by Whittle Communications in 1990. Though many would claim that it’s sole purpose was to place advertising into the classroom, it was designed to find an economically feasible way for schools to acquire much needed equipment and to provide a news program that was geared toward kids in order to help them to be more in touch with the world around them. Channel One loans and maintains multimedia equipment (VCRs, Televisions, Satellite Dishes, etc. ) in return for the schools compliance to air their 12 minute broadcast in at least 90% of their classrooms at least once a day. The program includes news of current events, interviews, and games to help keep the material entertaining. The program is aired daily in over 12,000 schools and has a viewing audience of over 8 million teenagers. Within the broadcast are commercial breaks (much like a regular television program) which are sold in thirty second time slots at an average of $200,000 per slot to help to provide Channel One with the means in which to carry out it’s services. (Metrock, J. 2004)

While there is no question of the importance of media based learning in the classroom, many people believe that Channel One’s integration of commercial breaks in their broadcast is fundamentally wrong. Many see the broadcast as simply a means to bring marketing into the classroom and they further state that the educational value of the program is “highly questionable”. (Parkay & Stanford. 2004. pg 394). Those who oppose the program feel that the classroom environment is being tainted by these commercials and are lobbying for the dissolution of Channel One’s broadcast. Ralph Nader, a member of the opposition of Channel One, stated in his 1999 testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that, “Channel One does not belong in schools because it conveys materialism and harmful messages to children, corrupts the integrity of schools, and degrades the moral authority of schools and teachers, exploits schools and compulsory attendance laws to coerce schoolchildren to watch ads, and wastes school time and tax money.” (McNatt. 2004) Even so, if we were to deny the use of these capitalistic marketing strategies in our schools, where would we find the funding to outfit our schools with the equipment necessary to properly educate our youth?

It is hard to imagine anyone actually wanting their children exposed to commercialism in their learning environment. The level of marketing our children receive from television and radio broadcasts alone are astounding. Still, there is a balance we must find between funding for our already stretched school budgets, and a certain level of additional marketing. We have never seen it odd that our yearbooks and athletic competitions are sponsored by local businesses. These programs have been easily justified as means to attain the money needed for publishing or sports equipment. Even our school pictures are a means for a photographer to come into our schools and try to sell our students and their parents a product. What is it that makes Channel One so different? Is it that Channel One is a national enterprise? Maybe this should just be seen as the next step in a logical evolution of school funding activities.

Advocates argue that Channel One, after all, provides equipment that they encourage the schools to use for other purposes. Their newscasts have won many journalism awards for excellence. They make the news more focused toward the youth of our nation as opposed to what they would receive should the be inclined to pick up a newspaper or to watch the nightly news on television. In many classes the material helps to enhance what is already being taught in the classrooms thereby providing an even deeper understanding of the subject at hand. Though the idea of a commercialized classroom may seem on the surface to be ethically questionable, no one seems to be finding alternate ways to help to fund our already struggling schools. No one seems to want to pay more taxes to help to ensure our children with a quality education. School funding instead, is left up to the ideas of the entrepreneur who can find a way to make money providing the schools with a service and supplies. All ethical principals aside it is a win-win situation.

Though the controversy of Channel One remains in high gear, the real issue is the lack of funding necessary to maintain our educational system. With teacher pay rates hardly satisfying, school maintenance falling behind, and the lack of equipment to carry out the programs necessary to educate our children, ideas such as Channel One are readily welcomed. It becomes a question of the lesser of two evils. Should we expose our children to 12 minutes a day of informative programming laced with commercials, or do we take the responsibility on ourselves to fund the school system. Of course we don’t like the idea of our classrooms becoming nothing more than a marketplace for corporate America but until there are better ways of doing things can we really chastise those who participate in these marketing strategies? It is a question of values and balance. A dilemma between protecting our children and providing for our children; one must bow to the other until another idea is offered. Until that day comes we must learn to accept the world as it has been handed to us.

Works Consulted

Parkay, F.W. & Stanford, B.H., (2004). Becoming A Teacher. 6th Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McNatt, K.M., (2004). Channel One’s Brand Of Journalism. NCACO.

http://www.geocities.com/iceman_km/ncaco.html