Children’s television — it’s mostly ‘pap’ and may be harming school advancement

Press, 22 August 1978, Page 17

Children’s television — it’s mostly ‘pap’ and may be harming school advancement

Bv

KEN COATES

Mediocre television programmes for children may be making them passive to learning at school. This is just one concern about the diet Of mainly imported pap regularly watched by thousands of children every day. At least one teacner reports that children of nine and 10 years of age who have been brought up watching television do not respond in the ciassroom by taking initiatives f nr themselves, as their predecessors of only 10 years ago did. There is mounting dissatisfaction with the way in which both TV channels cater for children. Although there has been an “explosion” in the development of children's television overseas, New Zealand is not buying the wide range of high quality and suitable programmes available. Both channels have appointed heads of children’s programmes. But there is little evidence that significant funds will be spent on producing New Zealand programmes reflecting this country’s values and cul» ture, and stimulating children’s learning. There is growing cricism, too, of many programmes children watch in the afternoons and early evenings. One allegation is that some programmes can have an insidious effect on children by promoting values that are alien to those of many New Zealanders. News of what is happening overseas comes from a TV2 producer, Keith Tyler-Smith, who recently attended the Prix Jeunesse Foundation contest for television programmes for children jn Munich. Before coming to New Zealand four y’ears

ago, he worked in profes* sional children’s theatre in Canada. Tyler-Smith reports a tremendous growth over» seas of children’s TV. Sweden, West Germany, and Britain are leaders, spending 15 per cent of operating budgets in this area. Norway, which has two channels, provides a big budget and a staff of 13 for children’s programmes. “The tremendous market which has opened up could extend to New Zea-land-made programmes,” he says. These could include dramas and short magazine items to be slotted into children’s viewing hours in Norway, Spain, or West Germany. The expansion abroad obviously provides a wealth of worthy TV far children available to New Zealand now, but which the country is not getting. “Our programme buyers are just not aware of this supply,” says Keith TylerSmith. “They should attend such festivals as the Prix Jeunesse contest where I was sponsored by the German Government because I had attended a training course in Malaysia.’ He is severely critical of what is available for children in New Zealand. Many of the programmes watched by youngsters home from school are 10-year-old has-beens, originally made for adults. “The Brady Bunch,” for example, gives a distorted view of what life is like in a family, portrays American middle-class values, and is 10 to 11 years out of date, he says. This view is shared by a schoolteacher, Patrick Huston, who has scripts for TV2 children’s productions. He condemns

such programmes as “The Brady Bunch” as insidious, arguing that they show happy, American middleclass families enjoying things most New Zealand children do not experience — luxury-class clothes, food, cars, and homes. Usually there was help in the house. “The kind of homes many New Zealand children know are far different, but what they see on television creeps into their thinking,” Huston says. “Some silently accuse their own mothers of not being like the mothers they see on the screen, and not providng th- kind of homes shown.” Patrick Huston carried out a survey of 1400

children aged from eight to 12 in 40 New Zealand schools last year. He found that the vast majority switched on the TV set as soon as they arrived home from school and watched solidly until the 6 p.m. news.

Although the children switched channels, they also watched everything, including old cartoon repeats.

Both Tyler-Smith and Huston see an urgent need for New Zealand to make more children's programmes which portray this country’s life and values. They point out that children" do not relate to American or English programmes which have an entirely different cultural setting. And because children develop so rapidly, there was a need for a range of programmes for different ages. “We need to reflect

what is happening in New Zealand; we have a large imigrant population and children should know about Polynesians, and about our industries, for example,” Keith TylerSmith says. Concern over children’s TV, already expressed by the Dunedin-based Monitor organisation, is shared by the Christchurch branch of the Children’s Literature Association of New Zealand.

Programmes such as “Wonder Woman,” “Batman,” and “Hogan’s Heroes” are seen as cliche-ridden and mediocre fare of no value to children.

“There are few programmes which really

stimulate the imagination of children, lead them on to read books or interest them in doing or making things,” says Mr Stan Jelley, nrincipal lecturer in professional studies at Christchurch Teachers’ College. He also deplores the lack of story-telling on TV, or book sharing, and rejects the argument that existing action programmes are satisfactory because children like them. They watch merely because things are continually happening, including violence. Mrs Paddy Smart, another member of the Children’s Literature Association, points to the philosophy o ( 8.8. C. children’s programmes. The corporation sets out to encourage children to make, shape, and contribute whenever possible. “We are not interested in providing moving wail-

paper to keep children quiet. We do all we can to stimulate individual thought and action,” the 8.8. C. says. About half the items in a British programme called “Blue Peter” are suggested by children, who send in 3000 letters every week. Invitations to children to send in ideas for a train of the future, or designs for clothes, posters, or models, can result in half a million responses.

Other programmes value and foster children’s creativity. Their stories, plays, . oems, songs, jokes, films, inventions, paintings, and models appear in programmes. But children are not exploited in them as performers.

“If television for children is interesting and stimulating, children will get much more out of it — more than just an escape from boredom,” Keith Tyler-Smith says. He says that parents determine largely what children watch. Some are aware of television’s educational and learning value; others use it as a child-minder; and a large group just keep their children quiet through programmes parents want to watch. Television can be vitalised to become a catalyst for active participation by children, but programmes must be good enough for parents to watch with their children. Some children watch soap operas, of which the United States-published “Family Guide to Children’s Television” says: “They are not really designed to meet the needs vf young children and the style of presentation can cften confuse and disturb them.”

The precise effect of television on children in New Zealand is not known. There is a dearth of research on the subject, and Keith-Tyler-Smith maintains that this is a job for universities and training colleges. He saw dozens of interesting, absorbing, and valuable children’s programmes while at Munich. He has ideas for several new series for New Zealand, including a 30-min-ute magazine programme. It would include a variety of sketches, some documentaries on topics such as where milk comes from, the making of a fork, portraits of w children, how different "children live, how kids have fun, interesting hobbies, and simple tasks like how to post a letter. Then there is the possibility of a picture-story programme with an actor in the studio reading, with the aid of visual effects. Another idea is for a poetry programme, poems being read by child writers.

Whether they ever reach the small screen depends on how much TV2 is prepared to spend on children’s TV. The experience of Patrick Huston is disquieting. He says he returned to teaching after a period of writing and teaching at Training College.

“It was possible when I returned to the classroom to get the nine and 10-year-olds, excited and stimulated about a project. “But this time there was a difference. Whereas 10 years ago they would have gone off and done work on their own with enthusiasm, today they merely remained passive • — switching to another channel as it were.”