Required TV program in schools encourages poor lifestyle choices

ARTICLE REPRINT • From the November 2000 AAP News, the official news magazine of the American Academy of Pediatrics

The AAP Media Matters campaign and AAP Committee on Public Education are working to help educate parents and caregivers about media literacy. Among their recommendations is that children watch no more than one to two hours of quality television each day. Many parents struggle to meet even that standard, but at least they can take comfort in the knowledge that their children?s time in school will pull children away from the tube and towards the textbook. Or can they?

Eight million schoolchildren at 12,000 schools in the United States are currently being required to watch television at school every single day. And worse, the ?educational? programs they are required to watch include advertisements ? for soda pop, chips, candy, and other edibles that at best may not promote good health, and at worst contribute lifelong poor eating habits. The programs also include an advertisement for beauty ?aids? that reduce self-esteem in developing young women and advertisements displaying lifestyles that promote disrespect, irresponsibility and inappropriate behaviors to young people.

Originally developed by media entrepreneur Christopher Whittle, Channel One recognized an untapped audience among schoolchildren and developed programming specifically targeted to older children and adolescents. The programming includes news shows with a ?hip? spin, hosted by young broadcasters in-studio and on-location at ?hot spots? around the world as well as more in-depth programming on important current events and social issues. These shows are delivered through a special satellite feed to televisions equipped with VCRs, provided free-of-charge to each participating school in exchange for the requirement that students watch the programs for 12 minutes each day.

The catch? Along with the 10 minute ?educational? broadcast, students are required to watch two minutes of accompanying commercials, many of which are specifically aimed at altering young people?s buying habits and lifestyle choices. As noted above, these commercials encourage materialism and market products that in many cases can contribute to eating disorders, obesity, poor nutrition, inappropriate behaviors and poor self-esteem, making the classroom a portal for corporations to reach and influence a sizable group of current and future consumers.

Many participating schools have welcomed Channel One as a way to furnish their classrooms with video equipment for general use, and believe that their students, who rarely read newspapers or view broadcast news, may benefit from exposure to current events in this format. But the costs are high. Putting aside the important issue that students are being exposed to programming content that has not been reviewed by local educations, parents or the school board; children in participating schools end up spending one hour each week ? 36 valuable hours of school time a year ? in front of a TV set as a captive audience. The cost to taxpayers in lost class time alone has been estimated at $1.8 billion a year.

The welfare of students and the integrity of the learning environment need to be protected. We suggest that AAP should discourage any form of advertising in the classroom. Channel One is not the only group that has recognized that brand identity and loyalty can be developed in children and adolescents, making advertising a wise long-term corporate investment. Free Internet providers, school reading programs, sporting events, and other in-school promotions are being sponsored by numerous companies. Schools should not have to sell their students in order to get the equipment and supplies that they need. Instead, they should understand how much advertising in the classroom is really costing them, and look to alternative measures, such as budget reallocations, private donations (without strings), or government funding to help cover costs.

A question to ponder as academic and professional organizations seek funding to promote their positive agendas and continue to build alliances with corporate sponsors: When, if ever, is such an alliance acceptable and appropriate, and when does it become ?a bad deal??

Dr. Reid is former chair of the AAP Media Resource Team and Dr. Gedissman is a member of the AAP Committee on Public Education.

Reprinted with permission. American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP News, November 2000.