Abstract
This study examined perceptions of college of education students and their experiences with Channel One, a privately-owned news service used in public education. Given that about one-third of middle and high schoolers in the US view the broadcast every school day, the authors surveyed 172 freshmen to discern their views and attitudes toward Channel One programming and commercials and the role colleges and universities might play in relation to this media service. While most studies on Channel One have been conducted from a K-12 point of view, the goal of this study was to reconsider the topic from the perspective of prospective teachers and post-secondary education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barrett, J. M. (1998). Participants provide mixed reports about learning from Channel One. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 53, 54–67.
Campbell, A. J. (1997/1998). Ads2kids.com: Should government regulate advertising to children on the world wide web? Gonzaga Law Review, 33, 311–346.
Channel One (2006). About us. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from the Channel One, Web site: http://www.channelonenetwork.com/corporate/fast_facts.html.
Conn, K. (2002). For-profit school management corporations: Serving the wrong master. Journal of Law & Education, 21, 129–148.
Dasinger, C. L. (1996). Students for sale: The regulation of televised commercial advertising in public schools. Law & Psychology Review, 20, 197–214.
Ervin, K. (2001). Schools expel Channel One: New Policy also limits ads, logos. The Seattle Times, B.1., November 22.
Gormly, E. K. (1999a). Commercials on campus: A qualitative study of educators’ reactions to the advertisements on Channel One. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 7, 106–135.
Gormly, E. K. (1999b). Technological shifts in the schoolhouse: Roles and uses of the Channel One television delivery system in the secondary school community. High School Journal, 82, 182–195.
Greenberg, B., & Brand, J. (1994). Channel One: But what about the advertising? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 56–58.
Harrington, M. L. (1992). State v. Whittle Communications: Allowing local school boards to turn on “Channel One.” North Carolina Law Review, 70, 1929–1946.
Hoynes, W. (1998). News for a teen market: The lessons of Channel One. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 339–356.
Johnston, J. (1995). Channel One: The dilemma of teaching and selling. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 436–442.
Johnston, J., & Brzezinski, E. (1994). Channel One: A three year perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
McKee, K. B., & Haley, E. (1994). Regulating Channel One within public schools: Precedents and parameters. Communications and The Law, 16, 37–50.
Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business: The commerzialization of America’s schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Molnar, A. (2002). What’s in a name: The branding of America’s schools. Tempe, AZ: Commercialism in Education Research Unit, Arizona State University.
Molnar, A., & Morales, J. (2000). Commercialism @ school:> The third annual report on trends in schoolhouse commercialization. Milwaukee, WI: Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Newsome, C. (1992). Pay attention: A survey and analysis of the legal battle over the integration of forced television advertising into the public school curriculum. Rutgers Law Journal, 24, 281–320.
Rank, H. (1993/1994). Channel One: Asking the wrong questions. Educational Leadership, 51, 52–55.
Richards, J. I., Wartella, E. A., Morton, C., & Thompson, L. (1998). Children and television: The growing commercialization of schools: Issues and practices. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 148–163.
Rudinow, J. (1989/1990). Channel One whittles away at education. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 70–74.
Sawicky, M. B., & Molnar, A. (1998). The hidden costs of Channel One: Estimates for the fifty states. Milwaukee, WI: Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Solomon, L. D. (1993). The role of for-profit corporations in revitalizing public education: A legal and policy analysis. University of Toledo Law Review, 24, 883–932.
Solomon, L. D. (2003). Edison schools and the privatization of K-12 public education: A legal and policy analysis. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1281–1340.
Spenny, L. M. (1996). Commercialism in New York public schools: State versus local control. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 5, 339–368.
Tiene, D. (1993). Channel One: Good or bad news for our schools? Educational Leadership, 50(8), 46–51.
Tiene, D. (1994). Channel One’s report card: Teachers evaluate the program. International Journal of Instructional Media, 21, 181–189.
Tiene, D., & Whitmore, E. (1995). TV or not TV? That is the question: A study of the effects of “Channel One.” Social Education, 59, 59–64.
Vaughn, J. (1997). Big business and the blackboard: A winning combination for the classroom? Journal of Law & Education, 26, 35–46.
We want our Channel One (1992). New Jersey Law Journal, 131, 14 (July 20).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A. J. Angulo
is Assistant Professor of Social Foundations, Winthrop University. He received an Ed.D. and Ed.M. from Harvard University. His research interests include history of education, technology and education, and student rights.
Susan K. Green
is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, Winthrop University. She received a Ph.D. in social psychology from Loyola University, Chicago and a Ph.D. in educational psychology and research from the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Her interests include classroom assessment, motivational and instructional strategies to promote learning, and multicultural issues in education.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Angulo, A.J., Green, S.K. Channel One Revisited: Prospective Teachers and the Role of American Higher Education. Innov High Educ 32, 105–112 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9039-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9039-7