If we can trust the results of two recent polls, the social and psychological effects of television on young children need some intensive study. These polls, one conducted at Stamford, Conn. and the other at Roselle, N. J., indicates that video has replaced the comic book, sandlot baseball, and even eating as the primary interest of juveniles.

The Stamford study, which is still being correlated, showed that:

(1) the child to whom TV is available spends an average of 27 hours a week viewing sundry "live" and "canned" shows. This average of nearly four hours a day is only 50 minutes less than the average daily time spend in the classroom. (The sample used in this survey was drawn from the Burdick Jr. High School, where the student body ranged from 11 to 15 years in age.)

(2) Although the percentage of students whose families had their own sets was high--50 percent--the number that looked regularly at neighbors' sets brought the total of TV-watching children even higher, to 79 percent. 352 of the school's 447 students spent most of their waking hours watching television than in any other single activity save school attendance.

Interpretations of this study, as reported in last Sunday's "New York Times," were optimistic. They assumed that these figures might spur educators to a more thorough study of television, with an eye towards grooming the medium for a major role in educating America's youth outside of the classroom.

Monday, however, the startling results of the Roselle survey were made public. This study seems to have proven that the video habit is actually lowering students' grades, as much as 15 percent at Roselle's Abraham Clark High School. (Although the Roselle survey parallels almost exactly the Stamford study, the New Jersey investigators have been the first to correlate grades with the TV habit.)

Specifically, the Roselle survey disclosed that in 78 percent of its sampled students, the grades of habitual viewers were lower than before television came to the area. These figures applied to those who watched TV for more than 25 hours a week. Only 14 percent of students who squinted at sets for under 10 hours a week had poorer marks. And in a comparison between two test groups of equal I.Q.'s--one of which had TV sets at home and one which did not--it was discovered that the latter averaged 19 percent better in grades than did the group exposed to living room TV. Further proof as to the accuracy of this survey comes from the discovery that boys, who spent longer hours watching television than girls, suffered a more severe drop in marks.

These surveys seem accurate. They were, however, conducted independently and are being analyzed without the aid of consulting educators and psychologists. This is unfortunate, for without the assistance of any such "dignified" group, the survey results may shortly become merely interesting phenomena. Instead, the results can serve as proof that television can educate as well as entertain. They can act as immediate evidence in indicting television for ignoring this responsibility to educate, and for even misusing its power with consequent harmful effects.