The 1997 State ofChildren’s TelevisionReport: Programming forChildren Over Broadcastand Cable Television

A study conducted by Amy B. Jordan (Ph.D.,University of Pennsylvania, 1990) and Emory H. Woodard, IV (Ph.D. Candidate, Universityof Pennsylvania) for the Annenberg Public PolicyCenter of the University of Pennsylvania under theDirection of Kathleen Hall Jamieson

9 June 1997

NO.14

R E P O R T S E R I E S THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTERO F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L VA N I A

Publications in theAnnenberg Public Policy Center’sReport Series

No.1 Public Space: The Annenberg Scholars’ Conference 1 - 4 March 1995

No.2 The State of Children’s Television: An Examination of Quantity,Quality, and Industry Beliefs 17 June 1996

No.3 Positive Effects of Television on Social Behavior: A Meta-Analysis 17 June 1996

No.4 Assessing the Quality of Campaign Discourse — 1960, 1980,1988, and 1992 22 July 1996

No.5 Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences,Portrayal in Mainstream Media7 August 1996

No.6 The First Annual Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Conference onChildren and Television: A Summary17 June 1996

No.7 Newspaper Coverage of Children’s Television24 October 1996

No.8 Information Technology and Its Impact on Catastrophic Risks12-13 June 1996

No.9 Public Policy for a Networked NationDecember 1996

No.10 Civility in the House of RepresentativesMarch 1997

No.11 Free Television for Presidential CandidatesMarch 1997

No.12 Newspaper Coverage of Children’s Television: A 1997 Update9 June 1997

No.13 Children’s Educational Television Regulations and the LocalBroadcaster: Impact and Implementation9 June 1997

No.14 The 1997 State of Children’s Television Report: Programming forChildren Over Broadcast and Cable Television9 June 1997

For information about publications, contact:The Annenberg Public Policy Center3620 Walnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6220Telephone (215) 898-7041

Publications Services, University of Pennsylvania73791 / 500 / 5.97 / RC.JM

Table of Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Part One: The Availability of Children’s Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Where are the programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8When do the programs air? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Who are the programs for? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Defining quality in children’s programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Where can children find the “high quality” programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Who are the “high quality” programs for? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Part Two: An Analysis of Commercial Broadcasters’ Educational Programs . . . . .15The reasoning behind the FCC’s regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15The commercial broadcasters’ educational offerings 1996/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16On-air identification of educational programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17The target audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Air dates and times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Types of educational offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19The use of educational consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Defining “educational strength” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21The availability of “highly educational” programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23What does a “highly educational” program look like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Methods for effective teaching through television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24What does a minimally “educational program” look like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Copyright ©1997 Annenberg Public Policy CenterAll rights reserved

2

Foreword

T he Annenberg Public Policy Center was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter

Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania which

would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels. Consistent with the mission

of the Annenberg School for Communication, the Center has four ongoing foci: Information and

Society; Media and the Developing Mind; Media and the Dialogue of Democracy; and Health

Communication. Each year, as well, a special area of scholarly and social interest is addressed. The

Center supports research and sponsors lectures and conferences in these areas. This series of publications

disseminates the work of the Center.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Director

Summary

Nineteen ninety-seven has seen tremendous changes in the state of children’s television. Not only

are there additional choices in children’s fare, but the Federal Communications Commission has

introduced regulations designed to ensure that more of the available programs for children are

educational and informative. In light of these changes, this study attempted to measure the amount and

quality of programming for children over the commercial and public broadcast stations as well as basic

and premium cable ones in a large television market in the Northeast. One week’s worth of children’s

television programming was gathered from 21 channels for a total of 1,063 programs (300 unique titles).

In addition, the study included an analysis of 31 programs specifically designated as “educational” by the

seven commercial broadcast stations in this market. We did this in order to develop a baseline measure of

educational programming and reporting as the new FCC regulations are implemented. We also con-

ducted a national survey of parents and children that is being released separately at the conference on June

9th and to which we refer here (Stanger, 1997).

The analysis of the week of children’s programming on broadcast and cable stations reveals the following:

■ Children have a large number of programs from which to choose. Over one thousand

children’s programs, representing 300 unique titles, air each week in a large, urban market.

Children can find programming in every venue on any day of the week.

■ Two thirds of the programs are designed to reach the elementary “school-age” child (5- to

11-year-olds), but the majority of those programs are violence-laden with no educational

value.

■ By contrast, of the programs designed for preschoolers (roughly one quarter), over 80

percent are high quality. This finding parallels one in the 1997 Annenberg Public Policy

Center survey that asks parents about their perceptions of the quality of programming

available for children of different ages (Stanger, 1997). While only 15 percent of parents felt

that school-age children have the best programs, a full 65 percent believe that preschoolers

do.

■ The pre-teen/teen audience is virtually ignored by programmers. Although most of the

programming designed for this audience is high quality (over 80 %), only four percent of all

programs appear to address this audience.

■ Fewer than half of all programs that air for children can be considered high quality. The

remainder were judged as having moderate (23 %) or low quality (37 %). Virtually all PBS

programs were rated high quality. When asked “Where do you think the best programs for

children and young people can be found?” the majority of parents in the 1997 Annenberg

Public Policy Center survey felt that PBS has the best programs (Stanger, 1997).

■ Programming on the other stations was less consistently good. Though slightly more than

half of the premium cable programs were considered high quality, only 12 percent of basic

3

4

cable programs were. Approximately one third of the “big three” (ABC, CBS, NBC) com-

mercial broadcasters’ offerings were high quality, while a meager 13 percent of the programs

on the “weblets” (Fox, UPN, WB) were.

The evaluation of the seven commercial broadcasters’ 31 specifically designated educational offerings

reveals the following:

■ Most stations (with the exception of the independent one) are adhering to the FCC require-

ment that educational programs have an on-air identifier, but the identifiers tend to be

idiosyncratic and obtuse. It is no surprise, therefore, that more than half of all parents in the

1997 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey on television did not realize that television

networks air information on the screen about which of their programs are educational chil-

dren’s programs. In addition, only two percent of parents could define E/I, although “E/I” is

the symbol used by most broadcasters and by TV Guide to indicate the educational programs

(Stanger, 1997).

■ The majority of the commercial broadcasters’ educational programs air after 7:00 a.m. as the

new FCC requirements mandate; a large number, however, are concentrated after 11:00 a.m.

on Saturdays, putting many at risk for preemption by sports programs. The new FCC

regulations require that core programs air regularly. Frequent preemptions will not be

allowed.

■ Producers of educational programs use a variety of creative formats to carry their diverse

lessons. The most common theme was a prosocial one (nearly 43 %). Traditional academic

lessons such as those based on knowledge and information (37 %) and cognitive skill develop-

ment (about 7 %) were also represented.

■ When broadcasters’ “educational” programs were evaluated for the strength of their educa-

tional content using a combination of objective and subjective measures, just over 40 percent

of the programs were rated “highly educational.” Top-ranked programs included those of

different genres and educational emphases. They received high scores for their consistent and

creative use of techniques that underscored their lessons and made them relevant and realistic

for the child viewers.

■ Only two of the programs ranked in the top educational ten were supplied by the networks;

the majority were obtained by the local broadcaster through syndication. Most broadcast

affiliates will receive their E/I programs from the networks in the coming season, however.

■ One quarter of the commercial broadcasters’ E/I programs could not be considered educa-

tional by any reasonable benchmark. Most of the “minimally educational” programs did not

contain controversial content such as violence or stereotyping, but included no discernable

educational content either. Others contained “lessons” that could not be seriously seen as

“furthering the positive development of the child.”

Introduction

Background

Nineteen ninety-seven has the potential to be a banner year for children’s television. Broadcasters

and cable stations alike are recognizing the potential money to be made from children’s televi-

sion programs and their product spin-offs (toys, international sales, licensing agreements with

fast food chains). As competition increases, the number of programs available to children has surged.

Cable outlets (such as Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network) are now programming primarily for the

child audience, and quite a few commercial broadcasters are providing weekday and weekend strips of

children’s programs. The Fox network built its empire on the strength of its “Fox Kids” lineup. Even PBS

has developed an island for children with its “PTV”—weekday programming designed for the child

audience. The result? Children can find a program designed to reach them almost any time of the day or

night and almost anywhere on the dial.

The children’s television industry has seen other changes in 1997 as well—specifically, a new set

of Federal Communications Commission regulations designed to increase the educational value of what

is available to children. Although the FCC regulations do not affect cable or public television, they do

have a significant impact on a large portion of the industry: the commercial broadcast stations, which

receive government licenses with the understanding that they are obligated to serve the public interest.

Beginning in 1997, commercial broadcasters must identify (on the air and in writing) their programs

specifically designed for children that have education as a significant purpose. Moreover, the 1997/98

broadcast season will witness the implementation of the “three-hour rule,” a requirement that commercial

broadcasters air a minimum of three hours a week of educational television in order to be eligible for

expedited review of their license renewal applications.1

No government agency will monitor the accuracy of commercial broadcasters’ claims that they are

serving the “educational/informational needs of children ages 16 and under.” Instead, the FCC is relying

on the good faith of broadcasters to air programs that live up to the spirit of the regulations. In addition,

the FCC hopes that on-air and written identification of broadcasters’ educational shows will make the

broadcasters more accountable to the viewing public.

The recent changes in the world of children’s television give rise to two important research

questions: First, does the increase in the quantity of programs designed specifically for children translate

into an increase in the quality of offerings? Second, will FCC regulations ensure that commercial broad-

casters include truly educational programs in the children’s TV lineups?

5

1 Commercial broadcasters may provide less than three hours a week of educational programming as long as they serve the “educational/informational needs of children” in other ways (for example, by hosting community events or airing public serviceannouncements). A recent survey of local broadcasters, however, indicates that broadcasters intend to comply with the three-hour rule ( Jordan and Sullivan, 1997).

6

The research presented in this report represents the second year of a five-year effort initiated by

the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) and jointly funded with the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation in 1996/97. The APPC research agenda reflects a continuing interest in measuring the

availability of high-quality children’s programs, identifying the obstacles confronting producers and

broadcasters in the airing of these programs, and assessing the impact of public policy on children’s access

to educational fare. The approach in this research has been systemic—including studies of the types of

program offerings and the structure of the industry, the attitudes of parents and children toward children’s

television, and the coverage of children’s television programs in newspapers across America (see also

Stanger, 1997; Jordan and Sullivan, 1997; Aday, 1997). Underlying the research is the belief that it is

crucial to examine children’s television from a variety of perspectives in order to develop workable strate-

gies for increasing the amount and viewership of quality children’s television.

The research and research methodology have benefited from the advice of the two Annenberg

Public Policy Center advisory committees. The Advisory Council on Excellence in Children’s Television

provided input on the overall approach we have taken to the study of children and television, including

the definition of “quality” programming and strategies for increasing the amount and viewership of

“quality” television. Its members are Dan Anderson, Ken Burns, Peggy Charren, James Comer, William

Damon, Jonathan Kozol, Charles Ogletree, Roger Rosenblatt, Zena Sutherland, and Marta Tienda. The

Advisory Panel on Educational Television worked with APPC researchers to define “educational” and test

out measures of “educational strength.” Its members are Dan Anderson, Sandra Calvert, Bill Damon,

Eliot Larsen, Valeria Lovelace, Ann McGillicuddy-DeLisi, and John Zimmerman.

The goal of this study is to measure the amount and quality of children’s television programming

offered in the 1996/97 broadcast season. One week’s worth of children’s television was obtained in a large

(top ten) urban market in order to answer the following questions: How much programming is available

to children through commercial and public broadcasting as well as basic and premium cable television?

What are the intended audiences for these programs (preschool, school-age, pre-teen/teen)? When do the

programs air (time and day)? In addition, we evaluated the “quality” of the programs in order to determine

the extent to which “high-quality” programs are available through different venues, on different days,

during different times, and to children of different ages.

A second series of questions was developed to measure the educational value of a subsample of

those programs labeled by the commercial broadcasters in this market as “educational and informational”

(E/I). We developed a measure of “educational strength” to determine the extent to which the programs

were highly educational, moderately educational, or minimally educational. An analysis was conducted to

assess the distribution of programs of different educational strengths across channels, times, days, and

target age groups.

This report is a sequel to an earlier APPC analysis of the amount and quality of children’s televi-

sion programming ( Jordan, 1996). Comparisons between years must be made with caution, however, for

three reasons. First, the 1996 programs aired during three days, not seven. In order to get a fuller and

more representative sample, this study used a composite week of programming. Second, the 1996

research employed a different definition of “quality.” This year’s research has focused more tightly on

“educational value” and “absence of violence” as the key characteristics of a quality program. Third, the

data set used in this report contains a subsample of educational programs from commercial broadcasters—

a sample that is evaluated using the FCC’s 1997 standards for “educational and informational” (E/I).

Comparable analysis were not conducted on the commercial broadcasters’ programs in 1996.

7

8

Part One: The Availability of Children’sTelevision

In order to evaluate the amount and quality of children’s television available in the 1996/97

season, we taped one week’s worth of children’s programs off-air in December, 1996 in a top ten television

market in a Northeastern city. Programs were included if they were specifically designed for children and

identified as such in TV Guide and the local newspaper’s television listings. Only regularly scheduled

programs lasting a minimum of thirty minutes were included. Consequently, specials (including

Hanukkah and Christmas specials) and short-form programs (such as “Schoolhouse Rock”) were not a

part of the study.

Over 1,000 programs were taped across 21 different channels. Channels included seven commer-

cial broadcast stations, three PBS stations, eight basic cable stations, and three premium cable stations.

Limited technical capacity made it impossible to tape all the programs in the one-week time frame.

Instead, programs were gathered over a two-week period with as many programs as possible taped during

the first week and gaps filled in with programs taped during the second week. This period, the first two

weeks of December, 1996, was selected to avoid the inevitable shakeouts that occur at the beginning of

the broadcast season, to avoid the period of heavy holiday special airings (Thanksgiving and Christmas),

and to give us necessary time to gather and code the programs.

Limited time and resources meant that we could not individually code each of the more than

1,000 programs. Instead, single examples of each title were randomly selected and coded. “The

Flintstones,” for example, airs 31 times during the week on both commercial broadcast and basic cable

stations; we chose to code one example. The programs were then “weighted” to account for their preva-

lence in the sample week, with the examples used as templates and data extrapolated to the other

instances of airing (accommodating for the unique data such as day, time and station of airing).

Ultimately, 300 single titles were individually coded.2

Where are the programs?

One conclusion was easily reached simply in the construction of the data set: children have a large

number of programs to choose from. This is particularly true for the two thirds of all American children

who have access to cable television (A.C. Nielsen, 1996). In the market that was studied, basic cable

stations, including Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, and TNT, provided nearly 40 percent of all the

children’s programs. Add to this the programs available on premium cable channels (including Disney

and HBO), and that number climbs to nearly 60 percent. The public broadcasting stations in this market

2 Technical difficulties resulted in the loss of 4 percent of the sample. The programs were not concentrated in any one venue ortime period.

contributed about 22 percent of the programs during the week and the commercial broadcasters aired a

bit more than 19 percent.

Figure 1. Distribution of Children’s Programs by Station

When do the programs air?

In the not-so-distant past, children’s programming was aired largely on the weekends, primarily

Saturday mornings. The advent of cable and the success of the Fox Kids Network has brought more

programming to children throughout the week. In fact, over 80 percent of children’s programs in this

study aired during weekdays. Far fewer aired on Saturday (11.8 %) and Sunday (7.8 %).

As might be expected, the “big three” commercial broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC) aired all of

their children’s programs on the weekends (mainly Saturday). PBS, on the other hand, tended to concen-

trate its children’s programs during the weekdays. The other venues in this market—smaller broadcast

affiliates (Fox, UPN, WB), the local independent station, basic and premium cable stations—distributed

their children’s programs somewhat more evenly across both weekdays and weekends.

Weekend programming tends to be concentrated in the morning hours, primarily between 7:30

a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Weekday programming also peaks in the before-school and after-school hours,

although it is more evenly distributed across the various “dayparts” than weekend programming. There

are significantly fewer programs for children to choose from after 5:30 p.m. In fact, fewer than 10 percent

of the Saturday, Sunday and weekday children’s programs air in the evening hours, when broadcasters

schedule their more lucrative adult “prime-time” programs.

9

Commercial Network2.3%

Weblets and Inds.16.9%

PBS22.3%

Premium Cable19.3%

Basic Cable39.3%

10

Who are the programs for?

Analysis of the programs included an evaluation of the “target age” for each show.3 Using a

variety of criteria, including the sophistication of the program content and the age of the program’s main

characters, coders assessed the extent to which each program was geared toward preschoolers (age 0-4),

school-age children (5-11) or pre-teen/teens (12+).4

Approximately two thirds of the programs in the sample appeared to be targeted to the school-

age child; approximately one quarter were for preschoolers. Fewer than four percent were geared toward

the pre-teen/teen audience.5

Figure 2. Targeted Age Group

Defining “quality” in children’s programming

The sheer number of programs available to children does not ensure that children have access to

programming that is diverse (as noted earlier, many programs such as “The Flintstones” air over and over

during a broadcast week). Nor does it guarantee that the programs will be “enriching” or “educational.”

Thus, we made an effort to develop a measure of “quality” that was both valid and reliable—one that

3. Unfortunately, these programs were taped prior to the January, 1997 implementation of the “ratings system” (TV-Y, TV-Y7),which would have provided a rough but objective measure of the intended audience for the program. Under this system, pro-grammers started “voluntarily” rating their programs using an age-based system.

4. Intercoder reliability was assessed by “double coding” 20 percent of the programs. Reliability was assessed at .58 usingKrippendorff ’s alpha statistic (Krippendorff, 1980). Because Krippendorff ’s alpha is a more rigorous assessment of reliability,acceptable levels are generally .60 and above. Thus, intercoder agreement is nearly at the acceptable level for this measure.

5. Roughly 4.5 percent of the programs could not be coded on this measure.

Preschool (0-4)25.8%

Not Available4.5%

Preteen/Teen (12-16)3.4%

School Age (5-11)66.3%

11

reflects the concern of academics, advocates, parents, and policymakers about programs for children and

one that could be consistently applied by different coders across different types of programs.

Exposure to violent content is the biggest concern of child experts regarding children’s television

viewing. (In fact, the V-chip that will be included in all television sets manufactured after 1998 was

originally intended to block children’s access to violence—the “V” stood for “violence.”) Thus, one key

measure in the evaluation of program quality is an assessment of the presence or absence of violent

content. Coders used objective criteria to count the instances of “overt depiction of an intentional and/or

malicious threat of physical force or actual use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being

or group of beings.”6

A second criterion for the evaluation of program quality is the presence or absence of a lesson.

Using the broad FCC definition, a “lesson” was “content that would further the development of the child

in any respect, including the child’s cognitive/intellectual or emotional/social needs” (FCC, 1996). The

presence of a lesson was weighted with the salience of that lesson throughout the program, defined as “the

extent to which the lessons are consistently conveyed throughout the program and/or integral to the

program as a whole.”7

Finally, coders made an overall subjective assessment of program quality—whether the program

as a whole was “positive” (a program one would likely encourage a child to watch), “neutral” (a program

one would neither encourage nor discourage a child from watching), or “negative” (a program one would

likely discourage a child from watching).8

Programs were evaluated along four dimensions:

■ presence or absence of a positive lesson;

■ salience of the lesson;

■ presence or absence of violent content; and

■ subjective assessment of overall program as positive, neutral, or negative.

The objective and subjective measures were weighted equally to produce an overall “quality score”

that ranged from 0 to 6. Programs with lower scores (0, 1, 2) had high levels of violence, low levels of

educational content, and “negative” subjective ratings. Programs with midrange scores (3, 4) typically had

both violent content and educational value, or had low levels of one measure or the other. These programs

6. Intercoder reliability, using Krippendorff ’s alpha, was .72, an acceptable level of agreement.7. Intercoder reliability, using Krippendorff ’s alpha, was assessed at .73 for lesson presence and .72 for lesson salience. Both are

acceptable levels of agreement.8. Intercoder reliability, using Krippendorff ’s alpha, was assessed at .68, an acceptable level of agreement.

12

typically received “neutral” ratings on the subjective measure. Programs with high scores had little or no

violent content, high levels of educational content, and “positive” subjective ratings.

This measure of quality represents one research team’s assumptions about the types of programs

that are best for children. However, we believe this measure accurately reflects the available academic

evidence about the effects of television on children. There is increasing evidence that children benefit in

numerous ways from exposure to educational programming (see, for example, Ball and Bogatz, 1970;

Dorr, 1986; and Singer and Singer, 1993), that children are negatively affected by violent pro-

gramming (see, for example, Hearold, 1986; Donnerstein, Slaby, and Eron, 1994) and that programs that

have both educational messages and violent content tend to lose their value (because children typically

overlook the “lesson” as they get caught up in the violent “action” [Mares, 1996; Levine, 1996]).9

Based on this measure of “quality,” 39.8 percent of the programs in this sample could be consid-

ered “high quality,” 23.2 percent “moderate quality” and 37 percent “low quality.” A listing of high quality

programs can be found in the Appendix of this report.

Figure 3. Distribution of Quality Programming

Low37.0%

Moderate23.2%

High39.8%

9. An earlier study of “quality” used a more complex formula and included measures of diversity, stereotyping, and unsafe behaviors ( Jordan, 1996). While these analysies were conducted in this year’s evaluation of children’s programs, they werefound to be unreliable (intercoder reliability was unacceptably low). Moreover, members of the APPC’s Council on Excellencein Children’s Television worried that the measures might not be valid (for example, there is little evidence that “bad language”in programming is harmful to young viewers).

13

Where can children find the “high-quality” programs?

The quality of programming varied tremendously across the different types of stations. As might

be expected, nearly all of the children’s programs aired on public broadcasting stations are high quality. In

contrast, only about 12 percent of the children’s programs aired on “weblets” (Fox, UPN, WB) and the

independent station, and about 13 percent of programs on basic cable stations, are of high quality. The

“big three” commercial broadcasters fared somewhat better with nearly a third of their programs in the

high-quality category. Finally, roughly half of programs on premium cable channels such as the Disney

Channel are high quality.

Low-quality programming dominated the offerings of the weblets and independents—approxi-

mately two thirds of their programs fell into this category. Basic cable and commercial networks also

aired a great deal of low-quality programming—52.8 percent and 41.7 percent, respectively.

Figure 4. Quality of Programs in Different Venues

These figures indicate that the majority of what is available to children over the commercial

broadcast stations tends to be of low quality—programs that contain violent content and are devoid of

educational value. Public broadcasting stations, on the other hand, offer almost exclusively high-quality

programs designed to enrich and inform the child viewer. Cable offerings are somewhat mixed: basic

cable programs are primarily of low to moderate quality, while premium cable stations are much more

likely to be high quality.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CommercialNetwork

Webletsand Inds.

PBS BasicCable

PremiumCable

Low

Moderate

High

Quality Score Code

Percent

Type of Channel

14

Who are the “high-quality” programs for?

Programs geared to the preschool audience and the teen audience are overwhelmingly high

quality (85.4 % and 80.6 %, respectively), while programs geared toward the school-age child are much

more likely to be low quality (50.1 %). In fact, only 20.2 percent of all programs for the school-age child

are high-quality programs.

Figure 5. Quality of Programs for Different Ages

100

80

60

40

20

0

Low Moderate High

Preschool (0-4)

School-Age (5-11)

Preteen/Teen (12-16)

Targeted Age Group

Percent

Quality Score Code

15

Part Two: An Analysis of CommercialBroadcasters’ Educational Programs

One goal of this research is to measure the impact of the FCC guidelines that went into effect in

January, 1997 requiring commercial broadcasters to identify the programs they considered to be “educa-

tional/informational.” In addition, this research seeks to establish a baseline measurement of the amount

and educational strength of the broadcasters’ educational programs, before the FCC’s “three-hour rule”

takes effect next season. This section focuses on a sub-sample of the programs labeled as educational

(E/I) by the seven commercial broadcasters in the market that was studied.

The reasoning behind the FCC’s regulations

On August 8, 1996, the FCC passed new regulations designed to clarify commercial broadcasters’

obligations to serve the educational and informational needs of children (FCC, 1996). Commission

documents argued that such an order was necessary because: a) the imprecise language of the Children’s

Television Act of 1990 led to variation in the way broadcasters complied with the Act; b) broadcasters

were claiming to satisfy their obligations to the child audience with programs that could not be reasonably

viewed as “specifically designed” to educate and inform children; and c) parents and others did not have

the information they needed about the broadcasters’ efforts in order to provide timely feedback to the

broadcaster and other regulatory agencies (FCC, 1996).

Thus, in January, 1997 broadcasters were required to start identifying their educational offerings

for children for the viewing public. In addition, beginning in September, 1998, broadcasters seeking

expedited review of their license renewal applications must air at least three hours a week of core educa-

tional programming for children. “Core” educational programs are defined as those that: a) are specifically

designed for children age 16 and under; b) have serving the educational and informational needs of

children as a significant purpose; c) are regularly scheduled, weekly programs of at least 30 minutes; and

d) air between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

The research presented in this section establishes the broadcasters’ initial response to the

reporting requirements, including their on-air identifiers and TV Guide listings. Because the “three-hour

rule” does not go into effect until next season, the evaluation of the content of this season’s educational

programs should be seen as providing a pre-implementation baseline. The APPC intends to track both

the quantity and the quality of the commercial broadcasters’ educational programming over the next three

years in order to provide a fuller picture of the relationship between FCC regulation and commercial

broadcast television for children. Measures used in this analysis will continue to be tested and refined.

16

The commercial broadcasters’ educational offerings, 1996/97

In identifying the commercial broadcasters’ educational programs, we considered three sources of

information: TV Guide (which began using the E/I symbol in March, 1997); on-air identifiers (icons that

air for a few seconds at the beginning of the program); and telephone calls to the stations asking for a

listing of their current educational offerings. Each source yielded somewhat different results. TV Guide,

for example, had a slightly different list of the broadcasters’ educational programs than did the sources

interviewed at the stations themselves. One week TV Guide listed “Big Bad Beetleborgs” as one of Fox’s

educational offerings. When a call was made to the station to check this listing, however, the program

director laughed and said, “That would be a stretch!” On-air symbols for educational programs were also

inconsistently used, particularly by the independent station in the sample. This may be the result of the

newness of the FCC’s requirements, although the reporting requirements had been in place for several

months. In the end, we relied upon information from sources who worked at each of the seven commer-

cial broadcast stations in order to come up with our list of 31 “E/I” program titles.

1 The air time for “Rap Around” cited by the station representative was 1:00 p.m. Saturday.

2 The air times cited by the station representative for “New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” and the “ABC Weekend Special”were 12:00 and 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, respectively. These programs were likely moved during this particular week to accom-modate sports programming.

Table 1. Educational Children’s Programs in One Large Market (Cross-referenced with TV Guide: March 22-28, 1997)Network/ Current Core Educational Programs Target Air Time TV GuideChannel Age ListingCBS Bailey Kipper’s P.O.V. (network) 6-11 10:30 Sat Yes(KYW-3) Secrets of the Cryptkeeper’s Haunted

House (network) 7-12 11:00 Sat YesBeakman’s World (network) 6-11 12:00 Sat YesCBS Storybreak (network) 2-6 12:30 Sat Not listedRap Around (local) 13-16 7:00 Sun1 YesNick News (syn.) 6-12 7:30 Sun YesTotal = 3.5 hrs/week

NBC Saved by the Bell 12-18 10:00 Sat Yes(WCUA-10) Hang Time 12-18 10:30 Sat Yes

Saved by the Bell II (network) 12-18 11:00 Sat YesCalifornia Dreams (network) 12-18 11:30 Sat YesNBA Inside Stuff (network) 12-18 12:30 Sat YesNews for Kids (syn.) 3-11 5:00 Sat Not listed as “E/I”Dream Big (syn.) 3-11 5:00 Sat YesPETV (syn.) 12-18 5:30 Sat YesTotal = 4.5 hrs/week

ABC New Adventures of(WPVI-6) Winnie the Pooh 3-6 7:00 Sat

2Yes

ABC Weekend Special (network) varies 10:30 Sat2

YesBrand Spanking New Doug (network) 8-12 8:30 Sat YesBrand Spanking New Doug II (network) 8-12 9:00 Sat YesTotal = 2 hrs/week

17

Rather than judge a program’s educational strength on one potentially unique program, coders

made evaluations based on three episodes of each program (except for two programs, where only two

episodes were obtained). A total of 91 programs was obtained from the larger December set (described

above) and from selected weeks in February and March. Occasionally a program needed to be “filled in”

with an episode from April.

On-air identification of educational programs

The majority of programs examined in this study included some sort of on-air identifier indi-

cating that the upcoming programming fulfilled the broadcaster’s obligation to serve the educational and

informational needs of children. Seven of the 31 programs did not have an E/I icon, most of them on the

independent station. The other programs that were missing icons were syndicated fare. All of the net-

work-provided programs had an on-air identifier.

The on-air identifiers were strikingly idiosyncratic. They varied widely in length, tone, and

production value from one commercial broadcaster to the next and even from one program to the next. In

addition to indicating whether an identifier was associated with the program, coders were asked to write a

short description of the identifier. NBC uses a bald head with glasses that opens up to reveal an E/I. The

E/I then dissolves into the NBC logo. CBS has its E/I embedded in a circle; the circle separates to reveal

the CBS logo. ABC uses a lightbulb that performs various tricks—skyrocketing up, skidding off, spin-

ning around. When the lightbulb flicks on, a voice-over says, “illuminating programming.” Fox, UPN,

and WB also have unique icons and voice-overs that varied depending on the program. “Bobby’s World,”

Network/ Current Core Educational Programs Target Air Time TV GuideChannel Age Listing

FOX Bobby’s World (network.; Mon-Fri) 2-11 2:00 M-F Yes(WTFX-29) Bill Nye The Science Guy (syn.) 6-14 7:30 Sat Yes

C-Bear & Jamal (network) 2-11 8:00 Sat YesLife with Louie (network) 6-14 11:00 Sat YesTOTAL = 4 hrs/week

UPN Sing Me a Song with Belle (syn.) 2-11 6:00 Tue Yes(WPSG-57) New Adventures of Captain Planet (syn.) 8-12 6:00 Thurs Yes

Bananas in Pajamas (syn.; Mon-Fri) 2-6 8:30 M-F YesSaved by the Bell (syn.; Mon-Fri) 12-16 4:00 M-F YesTOTAL = 6 hrs/week

WB Gladiators 2000 (syn.) 6-11 7:00 Sat Yes(WPHL-17) Oscar’s Orchestra (syn.) 2-6 7:30 Sat Yes

Jack Hanna’s Animal Adventures (syn.) 12-16 12:00 Sat YesThe Why Why Family (syn.) 2-6 8:00 Sun YesTOTAL = 2 hrs/week

IND Gerbert (syn.; Mon-Fri) 2-12 7:00 M-F Yes(WGTW-48) Madison’s Adventures (syn.) 2-6 11:00 Sun Yes

Ghostwriter (syn.) 7-10 11:30 Sun YesTOTAL = 3.5 hrs/week

18

a Fox educational program, has the title character’s head open up and shows information (e.g., e = mc2)

and graphics pouring in. A syndicated program on the UPN affiliate shows an apple on a skateboard

while a voice-over says: “Stay tuned, you might learn something.”

The on-air identifiers are also short. Most aired for mere seconds (usually less than five) and

aired alongside the program’s rating (TV-Y, TV-Y7). There was often so much information packed into

the first few seconds of the program that coders needed to view them several times in order to code all the

data.

The target audiences

In addition to identifying their educational programs, broadcasters are also required to indicate

the target audience for each show. Many academics and advocates have argued that educational programs

must be narrowly targeted, or they will be too sophisticated for some and too babyish for others. Table 2

indicates, however, that the broadcasters are not yet narrowing their audiences. Nearly all of the target

audiences listed by the broadcasters spanned five or more years. The programs were nearly equally distrib-

uted across categories, with pre-teens/teens the target audience for only slightly fewer programs.

Another measure of target age is the rating applied by the broadcaster. In the case of children’s

programs, three ratings are appropriate: TV-Y (all children); TV-Y7 (directed to older children) and TV-

G (general audiences). The majority of the programs were rated TV-Y or TV-Y7 (n=11 and 9, respec-

tively). Four programs were rated TV-G, and two programs had ratings that varied across episodes. The

remainder of the programs were not rated (though all but one, a news program, should have been under

the guidelines).

Air dates and times

All of the “big three” commercial broadcasters air their programs on the weekends (primarily

Saturday), as does the WB affiliate. The Fox affiliate and independent station air their educational

programs on both weekdays and on the weekend. The UPN affiliate airs its educational programs

Monday through Friday.

The majority of the broadcasters are currently airing at least three hours of educational programs

each week, even though, by FCC regulations, they are not required to do so until next season. The

exceptions are the ABC and WB affiliates, which each air only two hours on the weekends.

Interestingly, the majority of the educational programs air after 7:00 a.m. in the morning. NBC

airs two educational programs at 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.; however, that network airs a total of four hours.

UPN also has two early morning shows that air at 6:00 a.m., but like NBC, it exceeds future guidelines

with six hours of educational programs.

Although most programs do not start earlier in the morning than the FCC guidelines permit,

broadcasters are clearly concentrating their educational offerings at the very beginning or very end of the

19

dayparts. Previous research has shown that broadcasters are concerned about audience “flow” from one

program to another. They worry, for example, that if they program an educational show in the middle of

an all-entertainment lineup they will lose viewers (and therefore suffer a ratings loss for the shows that

come before and after the “dud”). Thus, broadcasters air their educational programs on Saturdays between

11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. (when viewership is low) and between 7:00 and 8:30 a.m. (before peak viewing

has begun).

Types of educational offerings

The educational programs offered by the commercial broadcasters represent a diverse set of

choices for young viewers. Traditional animated cartoons (such as “Brand Spankin’ New Doug” or “C-

Bear and Jamal” make up only 28 percent of the programs, while live action programs (such as “Saved by

the Bell” or “Bailey Kipper’s POV”) make up another 37 percent. The rest of the programs represent a

mixed bag: for example, quiz or game shows (“Gladiators 2000,” and “Secrets of the Cryptkeeper’s

Haunted House”) and news programs (“Nick News,” and “News for Kids”).

The approach used by producers to convey information also varied. Shows were coded as either

“narrative”—a dramatic or comedic story that has a beginning, middle, and end, —or “expository”—a

structure in which the program is designed to convey information rather than tell a story. Approximately

40 percent of the programs were expository and 60 percent narrative. The majority of the network-

provided programs were narrative.

All 91 programs were also evaluated for their “primary lesson”—the lesson that receives the most

time and attention in the program. Lesson types were divided into four categories: cognitive skills (devel-

oping approaches to traditional academic learning such problem solving and reasoning, investigation, and

formation of hypotheses); knowledge/information (increasing knowledge about facts, ideas, cultures, arts,

and theories); social and emotional skills (learning how to live with yourself and get along with others,

including overcoming fears, responsibility, conflict resolution, and leadership); and physical well-being

(learning to take care of our bodies and be safe). Although many programs had “subtexts” with sometimes

quite different lessons, most programs did have a clear educational goal.

The most common “primary lesson” in the broadcasters’ educational programs was one that

emphasized social/emotional skills (42.7 %). Programs such as “Brand Spankin’ New Doug,” “C-Bear and

Jamal,” and “Hang Time” fell into this category. Following close behind were programs that aired lessons

designed to convey knowledge and information (37.1%). “The Why Why Family,” “Jack Hannah’s Animal

Adventures” and “News for Kids” were examples of knowledge and information programs. Less frequent

were programs whose lessons developed cognitive skills (6.7 %)—for example, “Ghostwriter”—or pro-

moted physical well-being (6.7 %)—for example, “Gladiators 2000.” A number of programs emphasized

more than one skill (6.7%). “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” for example, often teaches children science facts

as well as investigative skills and principles.

Figure 6: Primary Educational Goal

Nearly all of the network-provided programs had prosocial messages as their primary educational

goal. Only three programs deviated from this formula: “Secrets of the Cryptkeeper’s Haunted House”

(CBS), “Beakman’s World” (CBS), and “NBA Inside Stuff ” (NBC). In fact, previous research ( Jordan,

1996) indicates that network executives are wary of providing educational programs that are “academic” in

nature. There is a prevailing belief that school-age children (who are the target audience for most of the

network-provided programs) get enough “academic” information at school and will tend to avoid these

types of programs. In addition, traditional “academic” programs necessarily target a smaller audience than

prosocial programs. They are likely to get lower ratings as a result.

The use of educational consultants

Programs were also coded for their use of consultants who provide input on the show’s educa-

tional content. Eleven of the 31 programs listed some sort of advisors of widely varying types. Some

programs, such as “The Why Why Family,” listed a series of Ph.D.s as “scientific consultants.” Others

simply listed names of “research directors” or “content directors.” One program even had a credit for

“special kid consultants” (with their ages listed as their credentials). In many of these programs, it appears,

some educational expertise is sought to strengthen the program’s educational content or credibility.

20

Cognitive Skills6.6%

Knowledge Skills36.3%

Not Available2.2%

More than one skill6.6%

Physical Well-Being6.6%

Social and Emotional41.8%

Defining “educational strength”

There has been much debate in the years since the Children’s Television Act of 1990 was passed

over whether the programs commercial broadcasters set forth as fulfilling their obligations under the Act

are truly educational. In their examination of FCC license renewal applications, Kunkel and Canepa

(1994) write that many of the broadcasters’ claims are “frivolous.” Watchdog groups such as the Center

for Media Education have also been concerned about the quality of children’s educational programs

(Aufderheide and Montgomery, 1994) . Even the popular press has assailed the broadcasters, assigning

failing grades to so-called educational shows (Radovsky, TV Guide, March 15, 1997) and questioning the

seriousness with which they approach their obligations (Oldenburg, USA Today, September 17, 1996).

The perceived failure of the CTA to increase the availability of educational programming on

commercial broadcast stations is what ultimately led to the FCC’s stricter time guidelines and definitions.

Although there now are clearer rules about when programs can be aired and how they should be identi-

fied, broadcasters still have wide latitude in determining the vehicle through which they should deliver

their message. Educational and informational programming is simply defined as that which “furthers the

positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child’s intellec-

tual/cognitive or social/emotional needs.” Thus, “prosocial” as well as traditional “academic” programs will

“count” as long as they have education as a “significant purpose.”

The FCC will not be judging the broadcasters’ claims on a program-by-program basis, but will be

relying on the broadcasters’ good faith and on feedback from the viewing public, advocacy groups, and

academic institutions that study the field. This research represents the APPC’s efforts to develop reason-

able benchmarks by which the broadcasters’ educational programs can be evaluated. APPC is not the

only group evaluating the programs, nor should it be. Policymakers need feedback from groups and

organizations representing a variety of perspectives and working from a number of agendas.

Starting from the FCC’s definition of educational, we drafted a series of questions that formed

the basis of the operationalization of “educational value.” These questions were developed in light of

current research in the education, child development, and communication literature. In addition, we

called upon the expertise of the APPC’s Advisory Panel on Educational Television, which includes

representatives from the fields of developmental psychology, education, and communication, as well as an

educational historian/teacher trainer, a middle school principal, and a former research director of a

successful educational program for preschoolers.

The review of the literature and a series of meetings with the Advisory Panel resulted in the

development of four key criteria necessary for a program to be educationally strong. Each criterion was

rated as 0 (not at all), 1 (a little), or 2 (a lot):

■ Lesson clarity: Is the lesson clearly laid out so that it can be easily comprehended by the target

audience?

21

■ Lesson salience: Is the lesson consistently conveyed and/or an integral element of the program

as a whole?

■ Lesson involvement: Is the lesson presented in such a way that it is engaging and challenging

for the target audience?

■ Lesson applicability: Is the lesson conveyed in such a way that the target audience can see its

usefulness in their own lives?

The Advisory Panel had developed a fifth criterion, lesson value: Is the lesson a valuable one—

important and beneficial—for the target audience? Unfortunately, we were not successful in finding a

valid measure of this criterion. No uniform and universally agreed upon national curriculum exists, and

attempts to have coders summarize the program “lesson” for coding by our panel of experts proved

unworkable. Lesson summaries varied tremendously from coder to coder. In addition, coders tended to

evaluate the same summary in different ways. For example, one program’s lesson for two- to eleven-year-

olds was summarized in the following way: “A young boy learns the value of being honest while being

sensitive to the feelings of others.” One expert saw the lesson as “too general” and gave it a low score,

while another expert saw it as “better for an older audience” and gave it a midrange score. A number of

“lessons,” however, did achieve high agreement across coders—programs that conveyed lessons about ways

to think, investigate, and learn. Programs that conveyed factual information (traditional academic lessons)

were also given good marks. “Prosocial” lessons, however, received mixed reviews.10 In addition, a number

of programs had “educational lessons” that were unlikely to be beneficial to the target audience. These

lessons conveyed mainly sports-related information or simplistic tasks (such as spelling or classification)

that were perceived as not challenging for the target audience. Although “lesson value” could not be used

in our measure of the program’s overall “educational strength,” we believe this is an important measure

that should be refined and tested in future research.

As with the assessment of “program quality” in the larger universe of children’s programming, we

also used a subjective measure of “educational strength.” Coders were asked to make an overall evaluation

of each program’s “educational quality.” They judged a program as either “highly educational” (one that is

likely to be engaging, challenging, and educationally valuable for the target audience), “moderately educa-

tional” (one that has some problems but one that is likely to impart some important lessons to the target

audience), or “minimally educational” (one that has almost no educational value for the target audience

and that seems a surprising choice for the “educational” label). The objective and subjective measures

were highly and significantly correlated (r =.80, p<.001).

The combined score of the objective measures (ranging from 0 to 8) and the score of the subjec-

tive measure (ranging from 0 to 2) were equally weighted and summed to produce an overall numeric

22

10. The advisory panel members felt they would need to see the entire program rather than judge the context in which the prosociallesson is conveyed.

score for “educational strength.” Programs were then recoded as “highly educational,” “moderately educa-

tional,” or “minimally educational.” Highly educational programs scored 7 or 8 on the objective measure

and 2 on the subjective measure; moderately educational programs scored between 4 and 6 on the objec-

tive measure and 1 on the subjective measure; and minimally educational programs scored less than 4 on

the objective measure and 0 on the subjective measure. Program scores were averaged across all three

episodes.

The availability of “highly educational” programs

This overall measure of “educational strength” for the programs produced the following distribu-

tion: 42.9 percent of the programs were considered highly educational; 35.2 percent were considered

moderately educational; and 22.0 percent were considered minimally educational.

There were no significant differences in the educational strength of programs targeted to children

of different ages; nor were there significant differences in the programs available on different commercial

broadcast stations. Expository programs were significantly more likely to be rated as highly educational

than were narrative ones,11 and programs that have knowledge/information and physical well-being as

their main lesson were significantly more likely to receive high scores than programs emphasizing

social/emotional skills or cognitive skills.12

Figure 7: Educational Quality Rating

23

Low22.0%

Moderate35.2%

High42.9%

11 Chi Square = 13.25, d.f. = 1, p=.001.12 Chi Square =12.229, d.f. = 4, p=.002.

What does a “highly educational” program look like?

The top ten programs in the overall scoring for the 31 educational programs in this sample were:

1. “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

2. “The New Adventures of Captain Planet”

3. “Gladiators 2000”

4. “Nick News”

5. “PE TV”

6. “Madison’s Adventures Growing Up Wild”

7. “Bananas in Pajamas”

8. “News for Kids”

9. “C-Bear and Jamal”

10. “Hang Time”

Only four programs received uniformly high scores on the objective and subjective measures

across all three weeks sampled. These were “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” “The New Adventures of Captain

Planet,” “Gladiators 2000,” and “Nick News.”

There are a number of interesting aspects to this list. First, the top programs are quite diverse

with respect to genre, subject matter, and target age. Top-rated “Bill Nye the Science Guy” is a live-action

expository program; that is, the show is designed to convey one or more science lessons and does not

contain the traditional beginning, middle, and end. “Captain Planet,” on the other hand, is a cartoon that

teaches children about environmental issues through characters in a narrative. Also on this list are news

programs (“Nick News,” “News for Kids”) and a live action situation comedy (“Hang Time”).

A second surprising aspect of this list is the fact that the majority of the programs (80%) are

syndicated programs. Only two programs, “C-Bear and Jamal” and “Hang Time,” are provided by the

networks.

Third, the educationally strong programs on this list teach traditional “academic” lessons as well

as “prosocial” ones—that is, some of the programs focus on conveying factual information or cognitive

skill development, while others deal with the intrapersonal and interpersonal issues. Although analysis of

the overall sample indicates that traditional “academic” programs tend to get higher ratings than prosocial

programs, it seems clear that it is possible for prosocial programs to be effective. Nevertheless, it must be

noted that only a minority of the top programs are prosocial in nature.

Methods for effective teaching through television

The top-rated programs received high marks because the lessons in the programs contained

elements necessary to educate effectively: clarity, salience, involvement, and applicability. What follows is

a description of some of the ways the shows’ writers and producers accomplished these tasks.

24

The lessons in the programs were clearly articulated through the explicit statements. The title character

in “Brand Spankin’ New Doug,” for example, lays out the show’s key prosocial issue at the beginning and

end of each episode. Doug concludes one episode by writing in his diary: “I learned that just because

everyone says something is true, that doesn’t make it true.” While such explicit statements may seem

heavy-handed for an older audience, this program’s writers were able to create a natural sense of self-

reflection rather than using a preachy, didactic monologue.

Lessons were also made clear by being recast in multiple ways. “Bill Nye the Science Guy” consistently

received high marks for lesson clarity because the writers took challenging lessons (for example, the

mechanics and maintenance of wetlands) and examined them from a variety of perspectives (through the

principles of science, the “way cool” scientists who study them, and the experiments young viewers can do

at home). Unlike the other science program in the sample, “Bill Nye” explores a single topic deeply and

thoroughly.

Such recasting can be accomplished in prosocial programs as well. The “Doug” episode rein-

forced the “you can’t believe everything you hear” lesson with a sub-plot involving gullible adults. In

contrast, many of the educational programs analyzed had competing sub-plots that were simply silly and

entertaining.

The salience of the lesson was effectively heightened by tightly weaving the lesson through the program

instead of simply tacking it on at the end. A number of effective programs set up a prosocial problem early in

the show and built toward a conclusion that would convey a valuable lesson. For example, one episode of

“Captain Planet” about urban decay stresses that responsibility lies with every citizen. It consistently

conveys that message and restates it at the end with action points. By contrast, many programs “layer”

lessons onto otherwise entertainment-only programs. For example, one program ostensibly designed to

educate children about classical music simply played a musical score during an action-packed adventure

story without ever referring to the music or explaining its relationship to the plot.

One way to make lessons engaging and challenging for the target audience is to make the child viewer feel

involved in the program. Of the game shows in this study, the more effective ones gave viewers the oppor-

tunity to answer questions along with the program’s participants. “Gladiators 2000” provided information

about exercise and nutrition, but also required contestants to answer questions about that information.

The information conveyed in the program was appropriate and challenging for the target age. “Nick

News” also aired interviews with “regular kids” who were the same age as the target audience, explicitly

asking the viewer, “What do you think?”

Engaging programs also gave viewers ideas for how to extend their learning outside the viewing situa-

tion. “Bill Nye the Science Guy” for example, challenges kids with: “Don’t believe me! Try it!” The

producers show the viewers easy and safe experiments they can do at home. Other programs recommend

books that can be found at the library.

Two of the programs used an interesting technique called “open captioning,” in which the dia-

logue and sound effects of the program are scrolled across the bottom of the screen. Some researchers

25

have found this to be an effective tool for increasing literacy skills (Neuman and Koskinen, 1992;

Koskinen, Wilson and Jensema, 1985), and these programs received “credit” in the coders’ evaluations for

using this technique. However, in one of the programs the open captioning did not match the dialogue,

probably because it followed the original script but the actors ad-libbed many of their lines in production.

Such mismatched captioning would probably confuse new readers and frustrate accomplished ones. (The

coders found it distracting.)

Effective programs include situations, settings and characters with which viewers can identify to help

make lessons applicable to viewers’ lives. A nature show for preschoolers, “Madison’s Adventures Growing

Up Wild,” encapsulates information about wild animals into contexts that are familiar to very young

children—eating, playing, bathing, sharing. “C-Bear and Jamal” is the rare program that shows children in

an urban, predominantly African-American context—a context many of America’s children can relate to

but seldom see in educational programming.

Other effective programs show examples of how the “lesson” is relevant to the viewers’ lives.

“Ghostwriter,” for example, teaches literacy skills such as investigation and hypothesis building but also

shows how such skills can be used to solve mysteries. The young readers and writers of the show are also

portrayed as using their skills in mundane, everyday ways. In contrast, other less effective programs laid

out facts without ever connecting them to viewers’ lives or to other important areas of knowledge.

Other programs made the lesson “applicable” by presenting realistic solutions that children could apply in

their own experiences. An episode of “C-Bear and Jamal,” for example, shows viewers how Jamal considers

all his options when he has to deal with the school bully (fighting back, skipping school, hiding, con-

fronting him). Along the way he also comes to understand why the bully is so mean—he has no friends.

Many educational programs, however, set up important problems that most children will face but address

the problems with completely unrealistic or simplistic solutions. The lesson in one program geared to

teenagers is that “you should do what you really want to do or you might end up with regrets.” The main

character of this show regrets that he never told his friend that he was in love with her. He finally works

up the courage to tell her how he feels and, in the end, she tells him she loves him too. Such a simplistic

example of “facing your fears” may be counterproductive for this audience.

What does a “minimally educational” program look like?

Roughly a quarter of the programs in this sample could not be considered educational by any

reasonable benchmark. They received low scores on both the objective and subjective measures and were

unlikely to contribute to the “positive development” of the child in “any respect.”

Minimally educational programs were typically innocuous shows that contained no violent or

stereotypical content. Clearly missing from the programs, however, was educational content. Coders

searching for a lesson were unable to find one; when they found one, it was muddled or contradicted. Two

shows, for example, are dramatizations of children’s stories (sometimes animated, sometimes live action).

While the stories are sweet, they are not educational. At the end of the program, children are encouraged

26

to “find this and other books at the library.” This message is certainly important, but not strong enough

to justify an E/I label.

Another category of programs contained information, but the lessons are not likely to be useful or

applicable to the child’s life. One of the low-scoring programs is based on a weekly update of the latest

basketball scores, including, in one instance, an inside look at a basketball player’s life and a humorous

short on his adventures eating alligator meat. Another game program focuses on child contestants over-

coming physical obstacles in a haunted house. Occasionally, children are challenged to answer questions,

but the questions test frivolous and trivial knowledge (e.g., the classification of salads, the spelling of

sports words). The questions, moreover, occur infrequently and are an insignificant part of the program.

27

CONCLUSIONS

The children’s television industry is in the midst of an important historical moment as a number of

economic and regulatory forces converge. Never before has there been so much competition

through so many venues for the child audience, and never before have there been such explicit rules

regarding the amount and scheduling of commercial broadcast programs. This study attempted to

measure the amount of programming available to children in the 1996/97 season over the commercial and

public broadcast stations as well as basic and premium cable channels in one large television market in the

Northeast. In addition, the study included an analysis of the commercial broadcast stations’ educational

offerings in order to provide a baseline measure as new FCC regulations are implemented at the local

level.

The analysis of the children’s programming on broadcast and cable stations reveals the following:

Children have a large number of programs from which to choose. Over one thousand children’s

programs, representing 300 unique titles, air each week in a large, urban market. Children can find

programming almost any day of the week, too. Although the “big three” commercial broadcasters concen-

trate their programs on Saturday morning, over 80 percent of the programs aired Monday through Friday

through public broadcast, smaller commercial broadcast, and cable stations.

Children looking for programs in the evening hours (post 5:30 p.m.), however, have a small

selection. Most stations clear their schedules in the prime-time hours for more lucrative adult programs.

Two thirds of the programs that air today target the elementary “school-age” child (5- to 11-year-

olds); only one quarter are for preschoolers. The pre-teen/teen audience is virtually ignored by program-

mers—fewer than four percent of all programs appears to be designed for this audience. One explanation

for the prevalence of “school-age” programs is that this audience is desirable for the advertiser. Such

programming attracts large numbers of viewers because elementary school-age viewers tend to be heavier

viewers than children of other ages (Comstock and Paik, 1991).13

Using objective and subjective criteria to measure the quality of programs, we determined that

fewer than half of all programs that air for children are high quality. The remainder were judged as

moderate (23%) and low quality (37%). The quality of programming varied greatly across channels,

however. Virtually all PBS programs were rated high-quality programs. This finding is paralleled by the

findings of a 1997 APPC survey of parents’ and children’s attitudes toward television (Stanger, 1997).

When asked “Where do you think the best programs for children and young people can be found?” the

majority of parents identified PBS. Similarly, when parents were asked to provide names of “good”

28

13. This finding may also be an artifact of the coding process. Though coders were encouraged to use the “cannot code” categoryfor programs that did not clearly fit the target age definitions, only about four percent of the programs were coded this way.The school age category may have been the default category for “fuzzy” programs.

television programs, the majority listed were PBS programs such as “Sesame Street,” “The Magic

Schoolbus,” and “Arthur” (see Appendix).

More than half of the premium cable programs but only 12 percent of basic cable programs were

considered high quality. Approximately one third of the “big three” (ABC, CBS, NBC) commercial

broadcasters’ offerings were high quality, while a meager 13 percent of the weblets’ programs were high

quality. Stations that do not “specialize” in providing high-quality programming apparently are disin-

clined to offer such fare. PBS’s mission is to educate and inform, and the premium cable channels are

presumably paid for by parents who are looking for enriching programs for their children. Though many

of the basic cable and commercial broadcast audiences see children as a major source of revenue, an earlier

APPC study found that the broadcasters believe that they will attract the most viewers with entertain-

ment-only, action-oriented programming ( Jordan, 1996).

Programs designed for the preschool and pre-teen audiences were predominantly high quality

(85.4 % and 80.6%, respectively) while programs for the school-age audience rarely were (only 20%).

Most programs for the 5- to 11-year-old audience were low quality (50%)—full of violence and devoid of

any educational value. Previous research has found that programmers believe that the preschool audi-

ence’s viewing is dictated by parental choice ( Jordan, 1996); thus, they attract the preschool audience with

shows that will also be acceptable to moms and dads.

The evaluation of the seven commercial broadcasters’ 31 weekly educational program offerings reveals

the following:

The seven broadcasters in this market air between two and six hours of “educational” programs

each week. A total of 31 program titles were identified and analyzed.

Most stations (with the exception of the independent) are adhering to the FCC requirement that

educational programs have an on-air identifier. The identifiers tend to air briefly alongside the more

familiar ratings (TV-Y, TV-Y7) and tend to be idiosyncratic and often obtuse. It is no surprise, therefore,

that more than half of all parents in the 1997 APPC survey on television did not realize that television

networks air information about which of their programs are educational. In addition, although “E/I” is

the symbol used by most broadcasters and by TV Guide to indicate the educational programs, only two

percent of parents could define E/I. Nevertheless, more than half of the parents in the survey said they

would use such information to encourage their child to watch such programs (Stanger, 1997).

Starting in September, the broadcasters will have to air their core educational programs between

7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The majority of the commercial broadcasters’ educational programs in this

sample already do, in fact, air after 7:00 a.m. A large amount of programming, however, is concentrated

after 11:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings. This probably reflects the broadcasters’ fear that airing educa-

tional programs in the middle of the lucrative Saturday morning hours will hurt audience flow and

depress the ratings of entertainment programs that air before and after the E/I program ( Jordan, 1996).

29

The late morning/early afternoon scheduling, however, puts many of the programs at risk for preemption

by sports programs. The new FCC regulations require that core programs air regularly, and frequent

exemptions will not be allowed.

Producers of educational programs use creative and diverse genres to carry their lessons. The 31

programs were not dominated by animation; rather, a variety of formats including news, game shows, and

live action dramas, as well as cartoons, were represented. The lessons contained within the programs were

also diverse. The most common theme was a prosocial one (nearly 43%). Traditional academic lessons

such as those based on knowledge and information (37%) and cognitive skill development (6.7%) were

also evident. The majority of the network-provided programs were prosocial, while syndicated and local

programs tended to be more diverse.

The broadcasters’ “educational” programs were evaluated for the strength of their educational

content using four objective measures: lesson clarity, lesson salience, lesson involvement, and lesson

applicability. In addition, an overall subjective assessment was made of the programs’ educational value.

Objective and subjective measures were combined to create an “educational strength” score, which was

then averaged across the three episodes of the programs. Employing this strategy, we rated each program

as “highly educational,” “moderately educational,” and “minimally educational.”

Slightly fewer than half (42.9 %) of the programs in this sample could be considered “highly

educational.” Top-ranked programs included programs of different genres and educational emphases.

They received high scores for their consistent and creative use of techniques that underscored the lessons

and made them relevant and realistic for the child viewers. Only two of the top ten programs were

supplied by the networks; the vast majority were obtained by the local broadcaster through syndication.

This may be explained, in part, by the fact that the majority of the networks’ programs centered on

prosocial messages—lessons that were significantly less likely to receive a “highly educational” score than

knowledge/information lessons. This is an important finding;—according to one recent study ( Jordan

and Sullivan, 1997) broadcast affiliates will receive most 1997/98 E/I programs from their network

parent. The networks will therefore need to find ways to strengthen their educational programs in the

coming season.

Unfortunately, nearly one quarter of the commercial broadcasters’ E/I programs could not be

considered educational by any reasonable benchmark. They failed on both the objective scores as well as

the subjective ones. Most of the “minimally educational” programs were entertainment-only programs,

and probably had been labeled E/I because they do not contain controversial content such as violence or

stereotyping. “Minimally educational” programs were also those that contained obvious and consistent

“lessons” such as basketball statistics and factoids, but the lessons could not be seriously seen as advancing

the positive development of the child (FCC, 1996).

The data used in this research come from programs obtained in a large, urban market. The

generalizablity of the findings, therefore, may be limited, because this sample represents a “best case”

scenario. Viewers who subscribe to cable in this market have access to three public broadcast stations, all

30

the network affiliates, and one independent station. In addition, they receive dozens of basic cable

channels, including the child-oriented Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network stations. Only the top ten

markets in this country offer such diversity. It must also be emphasized that the FCC’s more stringent

programming requirements do not apply until next season. Therefore the educational programs evaluated

in this study may not be representative of those available when the more explicit rules go into effect.

31

REFERENCE LISTA.C. Nielsen. (March, 1996). Special report to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the

University of Pennsylvania.

Aday, S. (1996). “Newspaper Coverage of Children’s Television.” Annenberg PublicPolicy Center Report No. 7, University of Pennsylvania.

Aday, S. (1997) “Newspaper Coverage of Children’s Television: A 1997 Update.”Annenberg Public Policy Center Report No. 12, University of Pennsylvania.

Aufderheide, P. and K. Montgomery. (1994). “The Impact of the Children’s TelevisionAct on the Broadcast Market.” Center for Media Education, Washington, D.C.

Ball, S. and G. Bogatz. (1970). The First Year of Sesame Street: An Evaluation. Princeton,N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Children’s Television Act of 1990. (1990). Publ. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000,codified at 47 USC Sections 303a, 303b, 394.

Comstock, G. with H. Paik. (1991). Television and the American Child. NY: Academic Press.

Donnerstein, E., R. Slaby, and L. Eron. (1994). “The Mass Media and Youth Violence.” InJ. Murray, E. Rubinstein, and G. Comstock (Eds.), Violence and Youth: Psychology’sResponse. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Dorr, A. (1986). Television and Children: A Special Medium for a Special Audience.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Federal Communications Commission. (1996). Policies and Rules Concerning Children’sTelevision Programming: Revision of Programming Policies for TelevisionBroadcast Stations. MM Docket No. 93-48.

32

Hearold, S. (1986). “A Synthesis of 1043 Effects of Television on Social Behavior.” In G. Comstock (Ed.) Public Communications and Behavior, Volume 1, (pp. 65-133).NY: Academic Press.

Jordan, A. (1996) “The State of Children’s Television: An Examination of Quantity,Quality and Industry Beliefs.” Annenberg Public Policy Center Report No. 2, Universityof Pennsylvania.

Jordan, A. and J. Sullivan. (1997). “Children’s Educational Television Regulationsand the Local Broadcaster: Impact and Implementation.” Annenberg Public PolicyCenter Report No. 13, University of Pennsylvania.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kunkel, D. and J. Canepa. (1994). “Broadcasters’ License Renewal Claims RegardingChildren’s Educational Programming.” Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia, Fall, 397-416.

Koskinen, P. R. Wilson, C. Jensema. (1984). “Closed-captioned Television: A NewTool for Reading Instruction.” Reading World. Volume 24 (4) 1-7.

Levine, M. (1996). Viewing Violence: How Media Violence Affects Your Child’s and Adolescent’s Development. New York: Doubleday.

Mares, M. L. (1996) “Positive Effects of Television on Social Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.”Annenberg Public Policy Center Report No. 3, University of Pennsylvania.

Neuman, S. and P. Koskinen. (1992). “Captioned Television as Comprehensible Input:Effects of Incidental Word Learningg from Context for Language MinorityStudents.” Reading Research Quarterly, Volume 27 (1) 94-106.

Oldenburg, A. (September 17, 1996). “Stations Trying to Define Educational TV for Kids.”USA Today, p. 1.

Radovsky, V. (March 15, 1997). “Saturday Morning Live.” TV Guide, pp. 63-64.

33

Singer, D. and Singer, J. (1993). “Barney and Friends as Education and Entertainment.”Yale University, Princeton, New Jersey.

Stanger, J. (1997) “Television in the Home: 1997 National Survey of Parents and Children.”Annenberg Public Policy Center Survey Series No. 2, University of Pennsylvania.

34

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research represented in this report benefited from the input of two Annenberg Public Policy

Center advisory groups. The Advisory Council on Excellence in Children’s Television provided

input on the larger program of children and television research at the Annenberg Public Policy

Center and offered invaluable input on the definition of “quality” television and strategies for increasing

the amount and viewership of “quality television.” Its members are Dan Anderson, Ken Burns, Peggy

Charren, James Comer, William Damon, Jonathan Kozol, Charles Ogletree, Roger Rosenblatt, Zena

Sutherland, and Marta Tienda.

The Advisory Council on Excellence in Children’s Television also recommended that we convene

a group of educational experts to assist in the development of an instrument to assess the commercial

broadcasters’ educational programs. The Advisory Panel on Educational Television did just that, working

with APPC researchers to define “educational” and test out measures of “educational strength.” Its

members are Dan Anderson, Bill Damon, Sandra Calvert, Eliot Larsen, Valeria Lovelace, Ann

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, and John Zimmerman.

Many thanks also to the undergraduate student coders who worked on this project: Allison

Altman, Kristine Alvarez, Courtney Fine, Shelley Gershoni, Lela Jacobsohn, Matt Rosen, and Alison

Sherman. John Sullivan and Margaret Crocker provided assistance in identifying the commercial broad-

casters’ educational programs. John also contributed to table generation and formatting of the figures and

tables used in the study. Janice Fisher copy-edited the report efficiently and effectively.

Finally, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and

Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, provided guidance and support throughout this project.

35

APPENDIXAPPC’s High Quality Programs Station Parents’ List* Children’s List** Encouraged List***Amazing Animals DisneyAnimal Adventures DisneyArthur PBS XBig Bag Cartoon NetworkBill Nye the Science Guy PBS, Fox X X XBloopie’s Buddies PBS XBlue’s Clues Nick X XBook of Virtues PBSChaarlie Brown and Snoopy DisneyFeed Your Mind TBS XGladiators 2000 WBGrounding Marsh DisneyGullah Gullah Island NICK XIris, Happy Professor TLCJust For Me PBSKidsongs PBS XKratt’s Creatures PBS X XLambchop’s Playalong PBS X XMadison’s Adventures 48-INDMister Rogers PBS XMr. Wizards World NICKNews for Kids CBSNewton’s Apple PBSNick News NICKNumbers Alive PBSPE TV for Kids NBCPuzzle Place PBS XReading Rainbow PBS XReady or Not DisneyRichard Scarry NICK, Showtime XRory & Me TLCSesame Street PBS X XShinig Time Station PBS XStory Time PBS XTeen Summit BETUnder the Umbrella Tree DisneyVoyage of the Mimi PBSWelcome to Pooh Corner DisneyWhere in Time is CSD PBSWhy Why Family WBWishbone PBS X X X

36

* Favorite children’s programs according to parents in 1997 APPC survey (Stanger, 1997)** Favorite children’s programs according to 10-17 year olds in 1997 APPC Survey.*** Programs parents encourage children to watch as reported in 1997 APPC Survey.

THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTERO F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L VA N I A

3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6220

Telephone: (215) 898-7041 • Fax: (215) 898-2024Internet: appc@asc.upenn.edu