The Republicans want to downsize the public sector, broadcasting is on its way out, and the notion of service is nowhere to be found. What is the future of PBS?
Like all technology-based organizations, the public broadcasting system is in a period of flux. There is increasing governmental opposition to providing continued funding, and a murmuring that PBS may no longer be necessary in a competitive, multi-channel television environment, which is edging further and further toward narrow casting. Moreover, though it is true that our national telecommunication systems were built on the premise of universal service, it is unclear that PBS is necessary to provide all viewers with quality programming.
The moves PBS makes in the next few years may very well determine its ability to sustain itself into the next century. It will be argued here that PBS's traditional mission needs to be rethought to take advantage of the unique strengths of public television and separate the old, struggling paradigm of public broadcasting from the potential of a nationwide educational telecommunications service. For while public television's edge in programming is likely to be threatened in the emerging environment, their strategic position can be exploited for far more impressive gains. PBS can help transform the highly fragmented and inequitable American system of K-12 education.
The CPB was authorized to facilitate the development of educational broadcasting and finance interconnection facilities to link the independent public television stations, but was restricted from owning stations, systems, networks, or interconnection facilities. The CPB established the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1969 to manage the interconnection of independent public and educational broadcasting facilities. To this day, PBS remains "owned and directed by its member stations, which are in turn accountable to their local communities." [3]
From its early stages, in spite of its privileged position as a government supported entity, public broadcasting received little opposition from commercial broadcasters. In fact, in addition to providing financial support, the president of CBS, Frank Stanton, observed:
[Public broadcasting] will do special things that we don't do in quantity at the present time. I would expect that they will appeal at certain times of the day to very small parts of the total audience. Because we are organized as a mass medium, because we have to serve the greatest number of people in order to do our job, they will be able to do special interest kinds of programming that we can't do.[4]
Ronald Coase, a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago went further in articulating additional benefits public broadcasting would create for commercial broadcasters:
[Public television was] bound [to] result in the long run in a much less insistent demand from the intellectual community that the commercial television industry broadcast public service programs and will therefore enable them to concentrate to an even greater extent than they do now on more popular (and more profitable) programs.[5]
Those predictions were certainly on target. PBS is well know for its quality programming, and its shows are frequently of award winning caliber. With shows like Sesame Street and Mister Roger's Neighborhood, it quickly became the favorite channel of many children, and offerings including The Secret of Life, Eyes on the Prize, and Nature made it equally popular with educators.[6] In addition to its preeminence in both educational and cultural programming throughout its first 20 years, PBS was also a technological leader. In 1978, PBS became the first American Broadcast television system to distribute its programs via satellite.[7]
Today, the network of public television stations organized through PBS is watched by more than 100 million people each week.[8] The 345 member stations are located in every state in the US, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa.[9] PBS enjoys the largest reach of any television network - broadcast or cable - in the country, with 99% of American households able to tune in to a public television station.
Beginning in the 1980s a formidable competitor emerged who possessed the potential to disrupt PBS's position as a government supported, high-end programmer. Cable television brought the capacity of hundreds of channels to American homes, and along with those channels launched a subtle yet serious challenge to the mission of PBS. As channel scarcity was for all practical purposes eliminated and the number of program offerings skyrocketed, commercial channels no longer needed to amass the largest potential audience to be viable. This is due to the fact that 1) the costs of cable are offset by the revenue generated by viewer subscriptions, and 2) in an environment of specialty programming advertisers are willing to pay for access to smaller targeted audiences. Cable television revolutionized commercial television because it made small audiences economically viable - even desirable. Many 'successful' cable offerings "rarely exceed a viewership of 1% of the television households." [11]
While the major network broadcasters frequently achieve ratings of 10-15, PBS has been consistently pleased with ratings hovering around two. [12] In today's environment there is a market for cable delivery of 'public television-like' programs to high-end niche markets. This holds severe implications for PBS, since prior to cable television public television was the only programmer able to serve small audiences. Professor Noam of Columbia University offers the following three stage model as an explanation for this squeeze of public television programming:
1. "If a certain type of viewer [let's imagine teachers] feels strongly about the failure of commercial broadcasters to provide them with the type of [educational] programs they want, politicians or [in the case of PBS] government officials may undertake to supply that type of educational program with publicly controlled resources."
2. "When the public channel's programs are oriented toward minority-taste audiences [like educators], commercial broadcasters will respond by providing more programs for majority tastes," as was predicted at the birth of public television.
3. "If the number of commercial channels continues to increase, eventually at least one commercial broadcaster will find it most profitable to provide [educational] type programs" and share the audience of teachers with public television. [13]
The parallel between Noam's third prediction and the plight of public broadcasting in the United States is quite compelling. Cable networks proliferated during the 1980s, and many began offering programs on topics once considered the exclusive realm of public television. In fact, cable networks purchased programs that previously would have been seen on member stations of PBS. Noam's public choice analysis suggests that it is no coincidence that public television has faced severe threats to its federal funding during this period. [14]
This model is illustrated by the phenomenal growth seen in both the Discovery Channel and the Learning Channel over the past few years. Each channel provides educational and children's programming and their subscribers now number 70 million and 40 million respectively. [15] Additionally, a 1994 National Association of Broadcasters study found an 81% increase in educational programming for children from 1990 to 1993. [16]
PBS member stations traditionally fulfilled their mandate by providing government supported, high-pitch programming, [17] but in the current environment it is likely that commercial programmers will take over that task and render much of PBS's mission obsolete. There will still be some program categories that are "inadequately served, [and] government action may be needed to assure the production and distribution of programs with a high social value," [18] but at the very least cable cuts deeply into the position of public television.
The Standards for Mathematics Teaching were released first in 1989 followed slowly by standards for science education. [20] The public outcry over the forthcoming History standards is only one facet of the failure of standards to gain widespread acceptance. In theory there is optimism about instituting national standards for learning, but in practice many teachers are "doubtful that states and local districts will have the resources to implement many of the recommendations." [21] While there are many reasons for this pessimism and the general failure of standards to take hold, [22] one is certainly the absence of any national coordination in elementary and secondary schooling in America.
Discipline specific reform efforts have been buttressed by the recent proliferation of reports documenting the need for technology reform in America's schools. "While technology is not a panacea for all educational ills, today's technologies are essential tools of the teaching trade;[however], most teachers have not had adequate training to prepare them to use technology effectively in teaching." [23] It is at the intersection of these two roads that PBS can promote a viable role for itself in the future.
The parents and teachers and grandparents of this nation -- the people who get cable and the people in the 32 million homes who don't subscribe -- want a better plan. They seem to want a better vision... Public television is honoring that endorsement. Local stations are becoming educational teleplexes. They're planting the flag of education on new technologies. They're turning the existing infrastructure of public broadcasting into a free educational launching pad into cyberspace. [25]
Augmenting PBS's promise to have all of its member stations on the World Wide Web by early in 1996, [26] PBS has reorganized its educational facilities into PBS Learning Ventures, which consists of two operating units, PBS Learning Services and PBS Learning Media. The latter will direct cooperative efforts between PBS and Turner Home Entertainment, MCI, and Disney, [27] while Learning Services will focus on PBS based activity for both the adult learner and the K-12 audience.
Of the many independent member stations of PBS, some have held an unwavering commitment to education for decades, while others have focused on other areas such as cultural programming and community services. At the present time, much of the energy of PBS is directed toward educational initiatives. As Sandra Welch, Executive Vice President for Education, explained, "We want to see education as a prominent part of PBS... and the response from our local stations, even those who weren't [enthusiastic] about education three or four years ago, has been very positive." [28]
There are many educational programs being developed, at local stations, state educational networks, community organizations, and PBS, that have the potential to transform education. Some statewide and regional programs, such as those in Ohio, [29] South Carolina, [30] and online through the Satellite Educational Resources Consortium, a "distance learning organization that is a partnership of public television and state departments of education," [31] are extremely exciting and have enormous potential. Yet, it is those programs that PBS is coordinating at a national level that could have a more significant impact, both for the future of PBS and within the educational community.
Of the varied projects at PBS, Mathline is an exemplary archetype that encompasses many far reaching goals. Mathline is the first discipline-based educational service that PBS has offered on the internet. [32] It is being developed by a staff of teachers [33] hired by PBS specifically for this project and is a collaboration with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, authors of the mathematics standards. It consists of online resources both on the World Wide Web and through America On Line and materials for locally based teacher groups. Mathline employs telecommunications technologies to provide resources for K-12 teachers. Eventually, Mathline will provide a comprehensive database for math education, free of charge, to all internet users.
The progression of the Mathline project has led to the development of trusted lines of communication between PBS, its local stations, NCTM, and individual math teachers. From Mathline, the Middle School Math Project (MSMP) has emerged. This year-long professional development opportunity expands Mathline to specifically focus on teacher development and educating teachers about teaching with the mathematics standards. MSMP achieves nationwide teacher development throughout the school year by providing videos that model effective math teaching practices, access to online learning communities, and interactive national videoconferences for teachers. [34]
The long-term plan is to collect the products developed through Mathline, both at local sites and at PBS, and assemble the experiences from each local site. Those successful products and experiences will be leveraged throughout the national network of public television stations and their associated school districts. By making use of "economies of scale, PBS can offer high-quality products with a national scope and use telecommunications to support local initiatives [and implementation] of these products." [35] This model uses all of the benefits of local production and implementation, yet provides a structure to scale those prototypes up and distribute them nationally.
It is interesting to note that while PBS does coordinate its educational activities with the Federal Department of Education, such interaction extends only to the funding aspects of some projects. [36] This level of coordination has been effective, though in the instance of Mathline "all of the curriculum work is done through the [PBS] stations and the NCTM." [37] The Education Department should, in theory, be the Federal agency charged with nationwide educational change, but it is clear from the PBS experience that the Education Department does not excel in nationwide implementation. If they did, the problems associated with standards adoption and technology integration would not be so troubling for educators. [38]
Mathline is illustrative of the vision of local development, national dissemination, and local implementation. Out of this work PBS is already approaching the realization that the improvement of education is a process, not a set of products. The steady expansion of this idea through a national network will distinguish PBS from more typical content providers.
Many of PBS's educational and cultural programs have superseded those proffered by other networks in the past. Yet in an increasingly competitive television environment, it is unlikely that PBS can retain that comparative advantage. If demand for educational programming is high enough, commercial networks will begin to carry those programs, as demonstrated by the growth and success of the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel. Even in an environment in which unfaltering public support is behind attempts to improve educational materials, PBS is not likely to succeed solely on the merits of its programming. In a multichannel environment, opposition to increased public funding for PBS may be realistic as the public need for educational programming will be filled by commercial providers.
PBS will be able to procure limited funding for a few types of programming that commercial organizations will not provide, but if the production and distribution of these programs are retained as PBS's main focus, the future for public broadcasting looks dim, especially if the current Congressional mood is taken into account. No doubt it will be a significant psychological blow to PBS to give up its focus on high-end programming, as that has been the mainstay of many stations and is the major contributor to PBS's reputation; however, holding on to that type of offering as the most important reason for the existence of PBS will not serve its long term interests. In the future more powerful players will enter that market and squeeze out PBS.
Fortunately, there is a more auspicious future for public broadcasting. The member stations are a grassroots network operated by colleges, universities, state and municipal authorities, school boards, and community organizations. Many of these public stations are owned by community based groups who possess an exceptionally altruistic outlook, whether their main focus is education or community service. In the face of technological and political changes, these stations are working hard to adapt and remain relevant for the coming twenty-five years. To retain their position as influential, public-service organizations they will need to exhibit flexibility in interpreting their mission. They can continue to support programming that benefits the public and is still not produced by commercial providers, yet they must discover new ways to serve the public interests. The educational initiatives that are being modeled by PBS at the national level are a way to leverage the strengths of the independent member stations.
The intersection of technology deployment and educational reform is an area that requires enormous, nationally coordinated commitment. Thus far, the Federal government has shown little initiative in this critical area. PBS and its members can position themselves as a network of organizations dedicated to bringing information technology to teachers and students. PBS President Duggan explains his rational for this action. "Free and universal public television is the logical on-ramp for the information highway since it reaches every home and millions of classrooms." [39] Moreover, he continued, the collaboration between internetMCI and PBS Online is not an initiative that reflects "the way we must go to survive. [Rather] we see it as the way to go to be relevant." [40] While these efforts have been initiated, PBS must move further in reassessing their strengths, reprioritizing their mission, and realigning their goals.
Two key realizations must accompany this reorganization. First, it is not the traditional focus on programming that enables PBS to offer services including online resources, NII connectivity, and professional development. Rather, it is their widespread coordination that allows PBS to identify local products, programs, and models of reform implementation and leverage those throughout the nation. PBS can build on the strong ties that already exist in many communities between local public television stations and educators, and can continue to create relationships with institutions like the NCTM that represent educators both nationally and locally. This enables PBS to reach communities, not just on a "mass media" level as in the past, but on a local level that engages school districts, teachers, and administrators in reform efforts.
Their national reach allows PBS to raise money effectively and their local penetration enhance productive distribution of seed money for new programs. The existing network of stations and new connections with educators will create a large market for both the dissemination of products and the propagation of professional development activities for teachers. Though the production of television programming for educators and children will become increasingly competitive due to the entrance of many commercial broadcasting/programming firms, the distribution of flexible materials and training networks to teachers will be less competitive, and PBS's position gives it a clear advantage in this area. According to Sandra Welch, stations are already realizing the truth in the Teachers and Technology report. [41] "Teacher training in technology utilization is sorely needed. We were amazed at how much training the stations had to do." [42] As PBS gains experience, they will be able to provide additional support for stations and suggestions for how stations can reach teachers in the community.
Next, if PBS is serious about their laudable goal of providing connectivity to the National Information Infrastructure for homes and classrooms, an effort must be initiated to uncover the technical feasibility of this endeavor. The reach of PBS could be a tremendous asset, yet one-way broadcast networks will not sufficiently connect NII users. As detailed below, a more ambitious plan to push the edge of technology use must be undertaken. The commercial partnerships with MCI, Disney, and Turner are currently confined largely to content areas, not technology delivery, though the Turner electronic field trips do use multiple delivery mechanisms. To lead the way in technology deployment for schools, PBS must go further in developing partnerships with university or commercial entities who possess advanced research knowledge.
This is not to suggest that PBS stations have no expertise in the area of educational programming and thus will be destroyed by their new competitors. Rather, the PBS perspective that "if we don't do it, who will?" or, as one local station president explained, "over reliance on marketplace TV can be detrimental to the mental health of our children and the cultural well-being of our citizens," [43] will not secure the future of the PBS. A plan that builds on experience in educational programming, while realizing the fleeting nature of that advantage, and develops other strengths will be the only lasting prescription for health.
Currently, PBS is analyzing the possibility of offering advanced television. [44] With more emphasis on innovation, PBS's spectrum could prove much more valuable to the nonprofit community. Potential uses of the spectrum include data transmission, paging systems, wireless communications, and multiple, simultaneous broadcasts. [45] In the near future, alternate spectrum uses may prove to be an effective way to engage underserved citizens in the advanced potential of the National Information Infrastructure. [46] Such uses hold boundless prospects for the field of education, and there are few telecommunications players, with the community-service perspective that PBS and its member stations bring to the table, who are willing to enter this market. If PBS can muster the support of its independent stations and can approach this opportunity with the same rigor that led them to develop closed captioning and satellite broadcast transmission, they can shape the use of new technologies in schools.
Blakely, Robert J., To Serve the Public Interest: Educational Broadcasting in the United States, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press 1979.
Debating Children's TV: Are Broadcasters Doing Enough?, from nii-teach@wais.com list serve, September 25, 1995.
Duggan, Ervin, PBS President, Communications Daily, July 18, 1995.
Duggan, Ervin, PBS President, Information & Interactive Services Report, April 7, 1995.
Eastman, Susan Tyler, Broadcast/Cable Programming, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993.
Gagnon, Paul, What Should Children Learn?, The Atlantic Monthly, December 1995.
Ho, Raymond, Maryland Public Television President, Communications Daily, March 6, 1995.
Noam, Eli, Television in Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Ohio Educational Telecommunications, available at http://www.tcom.ohiou.edu/oet.html.
Owen, Bruce and Steven Wildman, Video Economics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Panel Urges Shift of Focus for School Science Courses, New York Times, December 7, 1995, pg. A20.
PBS Fact Sheet, April 1994.
PBS Mathline Home Page, available at http://www.pbs.org.
PBS Marks 25th Anniversary Year, PBS Publication, January 1994.
PBS Press Release, January 17, 1995.
Perry, Tekla, The Grand Alliance: The U.S. HDTV Standard, IEEE Spectrum, April 1995.
Satellite Educational Resources Consortium, available at http://www.scsn.net/~serc.
Setting the Record Straight: Facts about Public Television, PBS Publication.
South Carolina ETV Network, available at http://www.state.sc.us/scetv.
Stevens, Vanessa, Comprehensive NII Connectivity for K-12 Schools: A Survey of Federal Policy Makers, available at http://www.columbia.edu/~vs94/nii/toc.html.
Telephone Interview, The Discovery Channel, December 1995.
Telephone Interview, Beryl Jackson, Mathline Coordinator, PBS, December 1995.
Telephone Interview, Amy Mahfouz, PBS Corporate Information, December 1995.
Telephone Interview, Sandra Welch, Executive Vice President for Education, PBS, December 1995.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-EHR-616, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995.
Vogel, Harold, Entertainment Industry Economics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.