Talk:Teachers TV

Television: British / Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Education in the United Kingdom (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Education in the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomEducation in the United Kingdom articles

Is it independent?

Well it claims to be. The FAQ says:

How can the channel be independent if it receives DfES funding?

Teachers' TV is, by law, editorially independent of the DfES. The DfES has set up an independent Teachers' TV Board of Governors to agree channel strategy and assess performance. You can read more about the governance arrangements for the Channel at the Board of Governors' website. [1]

However the government provides all funding and sets "educational outcomes" for it to meet. The board adapts the educational outcomes to create targets. [2]. The board is an Advisory non-Departmental Public Body. [3] and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. [4] Secretlondon 07:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be similar to the set up the BBC the governement funds it (through the TV Licence), set the targets and strategy (through the Charter) and appoints the management (through the Board of Governors). I guess if we accept the BBC is independent we should accept that TTV is too. In fact I am led to wonder why this channel was not given to the BBC to run by the DfES in the same way that the FCO funds the BBC World Service. I can only speculate. MrWeeble 11:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Teachers' TV logo.gif

Image:Teachers' TV logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck into rough sections

This topic is extremely moribund at this point, so I did the dead minimum to buck into sections, then removed the sections flag. I had to resort some paragraphs minimally. The headings are far from entirely orthodox, but should serve the purpose (such as it is) well enough. — MaxEnt 20:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a hack at polishing the lead and also removed the "advert" flag, even though some sections remain extremely stiff. The problems now are basic editorial standards, and I doubt much of anyone cares. Maybe I'm wrong, but I felt my efforts amounted to a bare minimum "mothball" treatment. You don't read much here and feel the love from the end-user side of this equation (it's more of a government-boondoggle RIP smell). And who is going to polish that? — MaxEnt 21:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]