On Target: Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)
[This article appeared in the Public Television Review (PTR) magazine, March-April 1976.]
A good way to describe Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) is to compare rifles and shotguns. Regular TV broadcasts are like shotguns—with their ammunition (programs) scattered over a broad audience. ITFS, like a rifle, targets a specific audience.
This ITFS narrowcasting can intensify the impact of the broadcasts and offers special utilization controls.
This paper surveys America's ITFS story. It's a tale with all the ingredients of good drama: an interesting cast of characters, a plot (which has been thickening recently), comic relief, successes, failures, and—we all hope—a happy ending.
Early Developments
Educators in the early sixties were seeking a flexible and economical distribution system for learning materials. They were asking: could TV be used as a multiple-distribution method (several channels broadcasting different programs simultaneously)? Could this distribution be handled without using scarce broadcast space? Was microwave appropriate and feasible?
The ITFS "pioneer" award goes to the Union Free School District 18 on Long Island, New York (the Plainedge Public Schools). In 1961 the FCC permitted the Plainedge ITFS experiment. Commissioner Robert E. Lee, viewing the 1962 demonstration, thought Plainedge "may well be to education what Kitty Hawk was to the aircraft industry."
In 1963 the Federal Communications Commission reserved 31 channels in the 2500-2690 megahertz frequency range for use by educational institutions and organizations. Programs are distributed through a private microwave system in this broadcast band. ITFS feeds identifiable receiving locations; only institutions equipped for the purpose may receive the broadcasts (thus, "fixed service").
Receiving equipment ordinarily includes a roof-mounted microwave antenna and a "down converter" unit which changes the microwave channels to the VHP range. Internal distribution systems carry programs to individual receivers.
The first systems to go on the air, in the fall of 1964, were Mineola (Long Island) and Parma, Ohio school districts. By 1967 the FCC had received more than 120 construction permit requests for over 330 ITFS channels.
The FCC Committee for the Full Development of Instructional Television Fixed Service spurred early growth. Regional committees were established throughout the country.
As local ITFS systems got established they faced daily problems of budgets, staff, and equipment compatibility—to name only a few. A constant challenge was encouraging educators to use the resource now available to them.
Public broadcasting matured during the next decade, receiving healthy injections of funding from foundations. States continued instruction on these public VHP and UHF channels. And ITFS—with its unique capacity to meet varied instructional needs—quietly and slowly struggled along unaided.
At the 1974 NAEB convention in Las Vegas, operators of 35 ITFS systems met "to discuss ways of creating a national interest group within NAEB, to specialize in matters peculiar to the needs of ITFS." A steering committee was appointed to represent the variety of schools, public and private school systems, and community TV authorities. ITFS needs and priorities were established:
better communication among ITFS users
a survey of existing users
funding help
legislative changes
engineering changes
prompt activation of dormant frequencies by educators
challenging the common carrier use of ITFS frequencies
Participants heard ITFS described as ". . . not a hidden medium, but an undiscovered resource." One broadcaster said ITFS had "low visibility."
Broadcasters became aware that the next few years will be critical. ITFS must be transformed from "low visibility" into the telecommunications resource its potential promises.
Characteristics and Applications
What are the principal characteristics and applications of ITFS systems?
First, an ITFS system is relatively inexpensive—relative that is, to standard television broadcasting. It is not, however, a cheap system, though some people try to argue that this is one of its benefits. Particular installations should always be estimated on a realistic calculation of all origination, distribution and reception costs. What is likely with ITFS is that an institution's investments will be more directly within its administrative control and it should be able to achieve effective results through its own careful management of resources.
Second, a four-channel ITFS system makes it possible to program materials with great flexibility. Multiple scheduling is easily accommodated; special request scheduling can also be arranged on a particular channel or at particular times. The Cleveland system, for example, reserves a channel to handle requests for delivering programs for recording by local users.
Third, ITFS systems are, by their nature, established within or among institutions that have made a commitment to their use. Thus, the entire range of program effort—from curriculum formulation to utilization and evaluation can be managed as a common administrative effort. Many ITFS systems incorporate staff development, staff meetings, and other specialized services. The Chicago system uses ITFS to help priests in the diocese to improve their sermons, as an example.
Fourth, ITFS technology makes it practical to assure widespread media access. The four-channel systems can be tailored to reach audiences not only in classrooms, but also in hospitals, prisons, factories, rest homes, social service agencies almost anywhere within the range of the signal.
Finally, ITFS systems can be a technological link in a system approach to telecommunications. By feeding cable systems it can be used to reach homes; as a distribution point for satellite reception it can distribute programs efficiently among its receiving locations. A little explored capacity of ITFS is also important. It can accommodate a variety of electronic signals: television, telephone, facsimile, computer data, and high-quality audio.
Current Users: Some Practices
The Catholic Television (CTN)
The Catholic Television Network (CTN)—with ten affiliates—represents the largest ITFS consortium in the country. CTN stations are in Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, New York City, Rockville Centre (Long Island) and San Francisco.
The CTN affiliation has practical benefits, such as group-buys on equipment and programming. New ideas can be shared regularly when directors and program directors meet.
Although policies and development can be coordinated on a network level, each CTN member reflects local needs and priorities. The New York and Brooklyn affiliates serve audiences of about 200,000 each. Some network stations reach from 20,000 to 40,000. The newest network member is its Chicago affiliate a system reaching over 400 locations and linked to an adjacent diocese for service there.
Through cooperative planning, each station can share the varied strengths within CTN. Some breakthroughs have occurred. For example, Brooklyn, San Francisco, and Chicago have accumulated experience in individualized learning systems (IGE, Westinghouse PLAN, Hawaii English Program). These affiliates can offer national leadership in integrating 1TFS technology with computers and individualized learning systems.
CTN's San Francisco affiliate also designed an experiment for NASA's Communications Technology Satellite (CTS). Called "Project Interchange," this experiment will utilize the archdiocesan ITFS system to link teachers in public and private schools in northern and southern California. This is one of the few CTS experiments designed to meet the needs of elementary school classroom teachers.
CTN's Chicago and New York affiliates have extensive production facilities which the entire network can share; however, many affiliates do their own productions. The Milwaukee staff has stressed utilization and has offered leadership in this area. New York has a medical-education project under development; in San Francisco a nursing in-service program is already underway.
Cleveland
In contrast to the CTN national consortium, a local consortium has utilized the ITFS resources in Cleveland. Dr. Alan Stephenson, Assistant Manager and Director of Educational Services of WVIZ-TV, reported on the "Cleveland Plan for ITFS" in Educational Television (February, 1971).
The Cleveland plan demonstrates how "many overlapping educational agencies and associations can make use of 2500mHz without extensive waste, duplication, conflict, and exclusion of others."
With a number of groups vying for construction permits, chaos would have resulted without a plan. The coordinated approach provided economies, efficient channel utilization, and fair access to all. Charter members of the consortium included: Cleveland City Schools, Parma City Schools, the Diocese of Cleveland, the Educational Research Council, the Educational Television Association, the Commission on Higher Education, the Academy of Medicine, and the Cuyahoga County Superintendents' Association.
All supported a new application for ITFS use, with no member having its own channel. Time, rather than channel ownership, is allocated. Channel operation is related to demand, with time allocations made each spring based on requests. Programming is the responsibility of the recipient of the time allocation.
"There is rarely any unused time," Dr. Stephenson states, reporting that one channel is used for secondary schools, one for medical broadcasts, and two for higher education and for industry.
Georgia/Indiana
The Georgia Regional Medical Television Network (GRMTN), and the Indiana University School of Medicine demonstrate a medical ITFS applications.
The Georgia network broadcasts in color to twenty-four institutions within a twenty-five mile radius of Atlanta. It has a catalogue of over 300 medical and nursing programs with 62 members located throughout the United States. GRMTN programs are also rented and sold to over 300 hospitals and medical schools, some as far away as Okinawa and Australia. Last year GRMTN began distribution of a weekly medical conference; they're now planning patient-education programs.
The broadcasts and tapes are approved by the AMA "for credit toward the AMA's Physician's Recognition Award."
Responses to an Indiana University survey showed the value of their ITFS medical service. One third of all practicing physicians in the viewing area are regular viewers.
Florida
Broward County, Florida has long been a system to which ITFS users point with pride. Its coordinator, Marion Bell, can document five million individual optional viewings for last year alone. This reflects the educational potential of an ITFS system which is interactive. Broward County has always designed instruction to permit its students to interact with the TV programs as they are broadcast.
Stanford/USC
The Stanford network dates to 1969 and is interactive, permitting "talkback." Stanford operates at nearly full capacity with some hours used by the Association for Continuing
Education (ACE), a nonprofit organization of network member industrial firms.
Both Stanford and the University of Southern California serve high technology companies which liberally support education for engineers. These companies, including Honeywell, Xerox, Rockwell International, McDonnell Douglas, Bell and Howell, and Aerospace Corporation, have in-house education programs, teaching specific skills.
In-house TV broadcasts are supplemented by "regional classrooms" in the midst of engineering employment areas. If travel schedules prevent an individual from attending a broadcast, it can be taped for later viewing. Many firms pay 100% of the tuition for these highly-specialized courses.
So the ITFS story definitely contains some documented successes since its "Kitty Hawk" days in Plainedge. These systems, by their very technological nature, are not broad-based. Yet even without this base for financial support, many ITFS operations have passed their tenth anniversary.
The time has come for a major leap forward in implementing ITFS technology. This requires an honest appraisal of factors inhibiting ITFS growth. And it requires a systematic plan for designing around these roadblocks.
Development Roadblocks
Several factors have inhibited the growth of ITFS systems:
educational problems
regulatory restraints
management/ leadership
gaps
funding
To the extent that ITFS is involved in classroom uses of television, it has shared the difficulty of all other instructional television: it is not always well or suitably designed for effective classroom operation. There is one principle to remember: Technology must be integrated into curriculum design to be an authentic educational partner.
Concerning regulatory restraints, ITFS systems have always been required by the Federal Communications Commission to operate with broadcast standards. This is clearly an unnecessarily high technical standard and the Commission has been requested to fix standards more suitable to this special kind of private communication service. The FCC continues to delay on this, which has the consequence of making ITFS systems more expensive than they need to be. At the same time, the delay may very well favor a request that the Commission open up eligibility for ITFS frequencies to users outside the educational community. Commission staffers argue that educators have not used ITFS widely, yet they will not take the steps which could make ITFS more attractive and more feasible to educators. This is especially vexing in the face of the increasing availability of improved equipment at lower costs.
The problem of management / leadership requirements was the focus of recent postdoctoral research by Monsignor Pierre DuMaine, a San Francisco School Superintendent, Director of the ITFS broadcast system there, and President of the Catholic Television Network. The research sought to identify "the critical decisions required at each management level (district, school, classroom) to plan and implement cost-effective applications of available technologies to existing instructional systems in accord with teacher needs."
In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission several years ago, Monsignor DuMaine specified the components of the problem:
The current financial and social crisis in America's schools requires rapid and massive application of modern technology ("management" technologies as well as "electronic" ones).
Educational problems are, increasingly, information problems.
Information problems of great magnitude require advanced information technology.
Cost-effective application of computer technology to learning requires a low-cost communications capability.
The DuMaine FCC correspondence concluded:
The feasibility of these educational information and communications systems depends upon large-scale (national, perhaps even international) planning, drawing from a wide range of diverse technologies. Educational management in the United States has not been able to provide the coordination and leadership for such planning. There are several reasons for this:
a) lack of funding
b) lack of communication between experts in electronic technology and educational technology
c) lack of appropriate focus for leadership and initiative
d) the conservative caution inherent in a large educational system
A Practical Strategy for Development
To implement ITFS development in America we need: leadership and management expertise; a coordinated plan; and money.
The recommendations which follow are my own. This is not a platform endorsed by any professional group. However, it probably approaches a consensus since the ideas stem from my own ITFS experience and from needs others have shared with me.
Hopefully these ideas can stimulate some practical action. And soon.
I. Gathering Data: Immediate and Long Range
a. Before efforts can be coordinated, we need an accurate inventory of ITFS resources in all three areas: production, distribution, and utilization.
The NAEB survey is a first step. However, funds are needed to fill in the gaps in the survey and in the FCC records. We simply do not know, at present, the extent of ITFS development in America.
b. It will also be critical to ITFS development that evaluation research is undertaken to show how and in what ways learning is taking place as a consequence of ITFS program operations. Such evidence will need to be weighed against costs of programs so that managers and operators will be able to report on the overall financial and educational results of ITFS systems.
II. ITFS National Planning Conference
Along with data-gathering there is a need for a funded conference which would bring together those who should help design a national ITFS strategy.
Participants would include representatives from: current users; communications experts; education leaders; classroom teachers; potential users, such as medical, legal, business professionals; key adult education consultants; colleges and universities.
To be a practical success, homework must be done before the conference. A practical working plan can be organized in advance for participants to react to and restructure. When the conference concludes we should have a practical plan for ITFS action—with a timetable. Once those affected have identified needs and priorities, management steps must be authorized to implement these plans. Otherwise you end up with simply one more conference 'blue sky' document.
III. ITFS Advocacy Strategy
A systematic advocacy plan would surely receive impetus from a planning conference, but several things could be underway in advance.
a. Almost immediately we should begin an organized and earnest attempt to communicate the ITFS story to those in communications, education, and the general public. This article is an attempt to get this underway, but it is only a beginning.
b. ITFS users need a communications tool among themselves. There simply is not enough sharing of information so many systems make similar mistakes and do not share successes.
c. A national service agency is needed to coordinate ITFS efforts. This need not be a new agency, but the responsibility must be accepted by someone. However, the day-by-day survival assistance is obtained on local and regional levels. Consortia like the one in Cleveland and the Catholic TV Network provide models for cooperative structures that support ITFS systems on the grass-roots level (where the real problems occur.)
IV. Funding Efforts
The funding question is also an important factor. ITFS has never had the kind of federal support which has assisted in the growth of other educational broadcasting systems. Without such external incentives, the ITFS proposals have to compete with perennially inadequate capital and operating budgets within the schools.
ITFS development awaits a financial commitment. But this commitment must be aggressively and systematically sought. A practical strategy must be designed to obtain seed money and to lobby for legislative support. Cost-effective plans for new clients should be designed.
V. Regulatory Relief
The ITFS users must address the Federal Communications Commission concerning the need for approval of new proposed standards appropriate to all ITFS operations. This is a serious problem now, and there seems to be no major opposition to the proposals. For its own administrative reasons, the FCC appears to be delaying action of this essential recommendation.
Developing under numerous handicaps ITFS systems have already demonstrated their capacity to serve important educational needs. They need to occupy more fully a position in the mainstream of instructional technology, for their natural capacities to be applied to instructional tasks at many levels of education.