III. WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, WOULD YOU SUGGEST IN THE APPROACH TAKEN IN H.R. 3333? A. B. A Section 643 (c) should be added in which one-third of the funds appropri- instructional programming.) (Under this The proposed section should specify further that recipients of instruc- Section 644 does not fully meet the rights requirements of instructional programming. the staff of the Subcommittee and to propose specific language. rapidly increasing enrollments. educators found themselves with a powerful new instructional medium: television. Some rejected it, fearing that it would replace teachers and dehumanize education; others saw in it immense capability for teaching and learning. There were even those who looked upon it as a cure for all the ills of education, and the air was filled with promises. But gradually disappointment set in. Much of the school television programming of the 50's and early 60's was unimaginative and technically inferior. Developed by local agencies that had neither the experience nor the resources to do better, most programs merely recorded what was already going on in the classroom; the viewer saw only a "talking head" or a simple visual aid. Educators themselves provided little direction, and often the programming dealt with subject matter at the fringes of the curriculum. Instructional television had spent its first dozen years doing unimportant things badly. But the problems of education remained, and so did television with all its power and possibilities. How to bring them together effectively? This was the challenge. In the mid-1960's. AIT's predecessor organization, National Instructional Television, joined by scores of educators and broadcasters, took on this challenge. Some of the tasks were obvious: to provide organization and direction; to enlist the creative minds; |