PBS Kids?
Posted: August 8th, 2012 | Author: Michael Goldstein | | 2 Comments »
I’m a fan of Mike Petrilli’s writing and thinking. But I gotta call him on this. He blogs that he’s now a fan of PBS Kids, because his 4 year old likes the shows, and because Mike P thinks they’re more educational than those on Nick Junior. So he approves the gov’t subsidy, because he argues this causes the quality. This surprises him, because he tends to favor smaller government.
Dear Mike P,
Thoughtful stuff as always.
I too have a 4 year old. Not sure I agree that PBS shows “are more educationally sound.”
1. Nick Jr shouldn’t be accountable for the fact that its sister channel, Nick, has SpongeBob.
That’s like holding Disney Channel accountable for John Carter. Or dinging Curious George because PBS has pledge drives. No relationship.
2. I’m not that impressed with PBS Dinosaur Train on dino content. Nick Jr. Dino Dan is at least its equal.
3. PBS Cat In The Hat has a lot of knowledge? What are you smoking there in Northern Virginia? It has Martin Short. Case closed.
4. I agree that Nick Jr Backyardigans is amazing — if that ran on PBS would you argue that it’s only possible b/c of the subsidy?
5. I agree PBS Kids has good science shows for kids. But
a. Since they do, Nick Jr presumably looks for the niche PBS doesn’t fill. One is multicultural characters that 3 and 4 year olds seem to like — Ni Hao Kai Lan, Little Bill, Dora, Diego.
b. If PBS didn’t produce the science shows, what makes you think that Nick Jr wouldn’t?
Nick Jr runs Team Umizoomi. It’s all about math. “Geo” and “Mili” are the lead characters, and most of the show is finding patterns. Why wouldn’t they do the same if PBS weren’t already on the scene?
I am a PBS fan. Used to serve on one of its advisory boards. Also a Match board members is senior staff there. I just believe that Nick Jr shows the market can create quality kids programming too.
Now I know Fordham favors accountability. The only way I know to resolve this question is for a knowledge bowl. My 60% Nick Jr and 40% PBS 4-year-old competes against your PBS-heavy 4-year-old. E.D. Hirsch writes the questions. Loser has to pledge enough money to PBS to get one of those tote bags.
Best,
Mike G.
my kid (2.8) watches almost no TV (a couple of youtube shorts (<5 min) a day – usually about animals, doctors or kids going to school in India (weird I know) – and maybe Fireman Sam at child care. should I get cable so she can watch these shows on Nick Jr or PBS Kids?
On the other hand, when she asked my wife and I whether the swing at the park would ever stop, each of us independently told her it was because of friction. She also told us that it was getting dark because the earth was rotating away from the sun …so maybe we don't need to spend the $100/mo or whatever it costs to keep her educated. Lol.
Oh, and to be more on topic, Petrilli's logic makes no sense.
Hi. Your post got a shout out from GS. These are the comments I left there. Just thought I’d share them here too.
I understand it was a light hearted post, but I just wanted to point out a few errors Ed people in general tend to make as revealed by Michael Goldstein’s piece.
1. They tend to misread or misunderstand research (Michael Goldstein seemed to imply that his child learned 60% from one TV network and 40% from another. That’s false. His child learned from him and his wife and if that child did watch enough TV to learned more from it than from them, then I’d have reservations about the role Goldstein has in Ed (which I do not. Should I?)). As a result, the competition proposed would reveal nothing about Nick Jr. or PBS Kids and everything about the parenting from both homes. Looks like Goldstein forgot about this).
2. They tend to get the students a little too involved in the discussion (Goldstein wanted to use his child (his child!) to challenge Petrilli’s child to a ‘who knows more stuff’ contest. They’re FOUR! I’m the parent of a four year old I wouldn’t want to involve my kid in any type of competition like that (Could you imagine emotional fallout from losing? Or worse (as is the case with my child): from winning!? Yikes! My opinion about which TV network is better should have no bearing on my child’s development of her self-concept. Now granted it was (I hope) a joke, but I’m a helicopter parent, as a helicopter parent, I have to look at that joke and recoil with a minor ‘yuk’.
3. They seem to think that the way to determine how smart a child is goes through competition (this is a classic ‘pro-market’ Ed person’s biggest mistake. Here, Goldstein seems to reveal that he would know how much his child knows (and would know which children’s TV network is better) only after some of “I know more than you do!” competition. Competition isn’t the answer. Developing a strong interest and love for learning new things, and then setting clear SWBATS for children entering and exiting each level is. If memory serves, this blog’s previous posts seemed to reflect an interest in clear expectations. I hope Goldstein stays in touch with that).
4. They tend to place too much emphasis on schooling and not enough on parenting when deciding which schools are better or worse (see my first explanation).
5. They sell Spongebob short (who does that!?!)!! It’s the only show that can bridge multiple generations and still reinforce awesome social and even emotional behavior (schools still do that). The dialogue is witty, the characters are powerfully symbolic (Petrilli and Goldtsein are symbolized by Squidward) and it is quite satirical (our kids do need to be exposed to Satire, no? Well. L. Frank Baum seemed to think so). I invite Mr. Goldstein to check out the episode entitled “Mrs. Puff, Your’e Fired” (season 4) and tell me whether he couldn’t enjoy that with his four year old or not.