Teacher Or Trojan Horse?

By Laurence Zuckerman

When Christopher Whittle unveiled his plans to bring TV to the nation's classrooms earlier this year, he served up the deal with the classic pitch: everybody would win. Underfunded schools would get tens of thousands of dollars' worth of video equipment free, students would get a news program to teach them that Chernobyl is not Cher's full name, advertisers would get a captive teenage audience, and Whittle would make a healthy profit. Despite loud criticism that the daily newscasts amounted to cynical commercialization of the classroom, Whittle announced last week that he was not only going ahead with Channel One but also expanding his service.

Along with the original newscasts, the reconstituted Whittle Communications Educational Network plans to offer two broad categories of new programming. < Classroom Channel will feature educational material chosen by an independent advisory board, which will also determine whether the channel will accept advertising. Educators' Channel will offer instructional services for teachers and school administrators. But the ambitious scheme will still be funded by four 30-second spots during Channel One's daily newscast. The new plan no longer requires a school to offer the program in every classroom.

Whittle touts the new network as a watershed in American education. The company promises to provide 1,000 hours of free satellite time and $500,000 annually to make instructional programs accessible to participating schools. The Whittle network could even accommodate Channel One's recently announced cable competitors: CNN's Newsroom, a 15-minute daily newscast, and Discovery Channel's Assignment: Discovery, an hour of instructional programming.

While the company, which is half owned by the Time Inc. Magazine Co., is confident the new plan will win approval from the 8,000 schools needed to make its $200 million investment pay off, Whittle still has not redressed his critics' biggest grievance. Says Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children's Television: "The whole thing is still being paid for by selling kids to advertisers. The Trojan horse now has a golden harness."

The question of advertising in schools has already raised legal challenges in several states, most notably New York and California. "If you're paying kids to watch commercials, that violates our state law," insists California Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who has pledged to cut funds to schools that accept Channel One. Whittle is adamant that advertising is the only feasible way to foot the bill. Says he: "Schools have a choice: either do without, or do it this way."

This spring's five-week tests of Channel One in six schools around the country were generally well received. "We saw positive changes in our students," reports principal Stanley Jasinskas of Eisenhower Middle School in Kansas City, Kans. "They became much more knowledgeable, and they took positions on issues." Elaine Green, assistant principal of Mumford High School in Detroit, says, "The teachers, the students, the parents were all pleased with the quality and content of the show." With educational leaders and school personnel apparently divided on the merits of the program, the battle over Channel One may have just begun.

With reporting by Sylvester Monroe/Los Angeles and Don Winbush/Knoxville