Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sesame Street Begins Teaching Math and Science

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the c-is-for-cookie dept.

Math 271

An anonymous reader sends in this excerpt from ABC News: "This season of 'Sesame Street,' which premiered today, has added a few new things to its usual mix of song, dance and educational lessons. In its 42nd season, the preschool educational series is tackling math, science, technology, and engineering — all problem areas for America's students — in hopes of helping kids measure up. ... This season, 'Sesame Street' will include age-appropriate experimentation — even the orange monster Murray will conduct science experiments in a recurring feature."

cancel ×

271 comments

"Teach the controversy!" (0, Offtopic)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533600)

"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."

Right wing wackos go postal in 3...2...1...

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533632)

Well, a government-funded public broadcast service was nice while it lasted.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533788)

"Let's see what happens when we put nitro glycerine into a blender. Timmy, why don't you push that button whilst I get behind this big tungsten shield!"

Whirrrr... bang!....

"We're gonna need another timmy!"

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534008)

"Let's see what happens when we put nitro glycerine into a blender. Timmy, why don't you push that button whilst I get behind this big tungsten shield!"

RU sure you don't make a confusion with MythBusters?

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534072)

Yes [wikipedia.org]

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533668)

You know, I'm pretty far right wing in general, but I'm not a religious fundamentalist. There's often a difference between the two. I also have no problem with Sesame Street teaching math and science along with reading and colors and everything else they do. As far as tv, Sesame Street is one of the few shows that I would not have a problem with my kids watching every day, if I had kids.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533758)

You know, I'm pretty far right wing in general, but I'm not a religious fundamentalist. There's often a difference between the two. I also have no problem with Sesame Street teaching math and science along with reading and colors and everything else they do. As far as tv, Sesame Street is one of the few shows that I would not have a problem with my kids watching every day, if I had kids.

It's a shame you don't have a political party that represents you. *shrug*

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1, Insightful)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533840)

It's a shame you don't have a political party that represents you. *shrug*

It's even more of a shame that he doesn't have a constituency.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533846)

They is one, they call themselves "democrats". Sincerely, The rest of the world.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533920)

They is one, they call themselves "democrats".

Sincerely,

The rest of the world.

Ah, fair point, fair point.

I wish the Progressive Party still existed in force on a national level. *sigh*

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533950)

No one gives a fuck what you think you nazi shill. Go back to goose stepping to GWB.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534390)

Yes, it is. And it's also why I've completely given up on anything good coming from politics.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533694)

A little untactful quoting Darwin on their outcome, the outcome of all their associates, and all the positions any of them held ever, isn't it?

Oh wait. You were referencing theists...

Right wing wackos go postal !?!?!?!?! (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533756)

They always ARE postal ....

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533940)

And when they get to the part about vaccines, GMOs, and everything involving chemistry we get to hear the moonbat left wing wackos go postal. Well, they probably won't actually get to any of the above (it is geared to a pretty young audience after all), but don't forget that no one has a monopoly on crazy.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534000)

Inevitability is the narrowing influence of the God of the gaps. Inevitability is that these people eventually ending up on the wrong side of history.

It frustrates me to no end to see how much drag these people create.

Conservatives and libertarians are cheering (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534006)

Conservatives and independents of all stripes are cheering this news. We never cared about public funding for NPR because we knew Sesame Street could get by just fine without federal support or meddling.

As for the story, teaching kids to question things for themselves spells the end of the liberal state. For then you start asking just where your money goes, as just one example, or why when just as you learned on Sesame Street that real scientists share data, and AGW "scientists" only share data with pals of like minds...

No, A controlling state does not like inquisitive minds.

It seems like a lot of Slashdot liberals could stand to start watching Sesame Street again, you could learn all kinds of things.

P.S. Not sure why they are saying Sesame Street is starting to teach math, it has always taught math.

-1 troll (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534058)

mod this -1 troll.

Re:Conservatives and libertarians are cheering (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534090)

> As for the story, teaching kids to question things for themselves spells the end of the liberal state.

WOW. Just, WOW.

That's it in a nutshell, really, folks.

Re:"Teach the controversy!" (1, Funny)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534308)

Actually, I'm a Right Wing Wacko.

I dont feel like going postal over this news... am I doing it wrong?

Right on! (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533626)

This alone will probably do more to improve education than the entire No Child Left Behind Act. Provided, of course, that it actually teaches the purpose of experimentation and science, teaches kids to ask "why?" and devise experiments to test ideas. All too often, "kid science" is "do this, then this, and now look at the pretty (green goo|flames|shiny), followed by a lecture on what went on. I'm hopeful that this will be one of the ones to get it right.

Re:Right on! (4, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533690)

I have no kind of inkling about the first sentence of the previous poster, but the part about 'teaches kids to ask "why?"' I'd like to amend: Hope it teaches them to want to ask "why?".

(Or maybe that would obviously be implied?)

Re:Right on! (3, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533802)

Shut up. Not now. I'm busy.

These are words that should never be uttered by a parent to a child. Why? Because it promptly snuffs the flame of curiosity. Most parents don't even realise they're doing it. They're just too absorbed in whatever they're doing to notice what they've just said to their curious 3 year old.

Re:Right on! (0)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534092)

Out of curiosity, what are appropriate responses when you are too busy? I am not a parent, but certainly know some parents who always put the needs of their children so far ahead of their own that their children wind up with a real inability to function in the real world, because they expect things to always be done for them and expect themselves to come first. The anecdotal results down the road tend to be traumatic corrections that sometimes cost the child years of his or her life when becoming an adult.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just genuinely asking.

Re:Right on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534194)

"I'm sorry. Daddy is really busy right now. We'll talk later - I promise - cross my heart, hope to die, stick HCL in my eye!"

Re:Right on! (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534234)

A good parent knows when an answer has time and when he has to react now because his child would else lose interest in something important. I doubt anyone could be too busy to talk with your child for five minutes to figure out whether it's some superficial nonsensical question or whether the child is honestly pondering it.

And in the latter case, you can always offer to explain in depth later, maybe take your child to a museum if appropriate or offer to do some of the experiments with them.

Re:Right on! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534244)

My attempt when discussing these things wit a very inquisitive 5year old (She asked what quantum mechanics was the other day) is "That's an interesting question and will take me some time to explain it. I don't have that time now, but we can talk about it when I have finished my job." With this I have to commit to answering the question.

The other answer I can give is (and I have to every now again) "I don't know. We should find out."

Re:Right on! (2, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534280)

No problem. It's all in the wording, and that the childs question is a good thing, rather than a bad thing. I would respond: Hey, that's a very good question, and as soon as I'm done with this, let's explore it together. This still keeps their enthusiasm kindled, and in fact may inspire them to go off on their own and find out.

Have you ever had a girlfriend/boyfriend (don't know who you are or what you're into, so no offence here) that was just a wet blanket?
A: No! I don't want to go swimming, I'm busy! Or;
Hey, that sounds like fun, but let's do it tomorrow because I have something urgent to do right now.

It's all about keeping the enthusiasm, and certainly NOT bending to the childs whims and fancies. Remember, you have the lead as a parent, not the child, unless it is an appropriate situation to teach the child how to lead. Most importantly, you need to get the child used to delayed gratification rather than instant gratification, or they will become exactly the impulsive, narcissistic, borderline sociopath you are talking about, that will be sorely disappointed when they collide with society at large.

Re:Right on! (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534160)

Shut up. Not now. I'm busy.

These are words that should never be uttered by a parent to a child.

...if you want your child to grow up thinking that they should be the center of attention in every situation they enter.

On the other hand, if you want your child to be a polite and functional member of society, you can ensure they aren't in any immediate distress, and then explain to them that they can wait briefly for your attention.

Re:Right on! (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534344)

It's very interesting to see so many assume that the only way to keep on track to your schedule is to use one of the 3 responses I listed. By no means do I advocate instant gratification, unless of course, you're someone like Rockefella who's desire it was to instill exactly those qualities into his offspring. Case in point was where he not only allowed interruption by, but paid full attention to his 3 year old son whilst talking business with a highly respected and highly paid PhD level consultant.

As I responded to a different post, it is all about expressing to the child that the question is good, but the timing is not. One of two things will happen. Either they will be impatient, and try to find the answer to the question themselves - good result, or, they will wait until the time is appropriate, and then receive their answer, thus learning delayed gratification. - another good result.

Re:Right on! (0)

feepness (543479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534400)

I am perfectly comfortable saying "Not now. I'm busy." to my child. Generally that will include a "sweetie" on the end, but I wouldn't say I've never said them on their own.

I've never said "Shut up." and including them in same category is probably what is causing so many to question what you've written.

Re:Right on! (0)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534272)

You should never phrase it "shut up. Not now. I'm busy" but you also shouldn't have your child expect that they can interrupt you no matter what you're doing and you'll answer every question they pose to you. Children need to understand social conventions also. For example, my oldest son (8 years old) will often try to talk to me while I'm in the middle of a conversation with someone else. It would be rude of me to stop conversing with the person every time my child had a question, so I'll use the time to teach my son the value of patience and, if you need to interrupt, how to ask your question politely. (Instead of "Hey dad! Stop talking right now and answer this or I'll scream!!!!")

Re:Right on! (0)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534396)

There are several things that can momentarily override the need to educate your children. A tornado less than a mile away and heading in your direction, for example. On the whole though, I agree that doing this is a form of "educational debt" that you should make up for your kids at a later date. A similar concept to "technical debt".

Kids also need to learn when it is appropriate to ask questions.

Re:Right on! (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533832)

I think that's implied. The goal of any real teaching (at least for children) isn't just "teach them how to ____", but "teach them to want to ___".

English isn't just "teach kids to read and write", it's "teach them to love reading great books and want to write their own". Programming isn't just "teach them how to make a computer do something", it's "teach them to enjoy making a machine do whatever they want". Music isn't just "teach them to play music", it's "teach them to enjoy playing and writing their own music".

It's difficult to pull off, but Sesame Street has a good track record on the subject.

Re:Right on! (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533988)

Probably because NCLB was an unfunded mandate which had bench marks set via standardized testing of a rather elaborate nature. Also due to the stakes it tends to crowd out significant portions of the year when teachers are theoretically supposed to be teaching.

Re:Right on! (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534084)

I have no kind of inkling about the first sentence of the previous poster, but the part about 'teaches kids to ask "why?"' I'd like to amend: Hope it teaches them to want to ask "why?".

(Or maybe that would obviously be implied?)

Sesame Street is for pre-school kids - they are already asking "why?" quite a lot. The problem starts when they go to school and the only answer they get is: "Shut up, listen and obey".

Re:Right on! (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533748)

The 'do this then do that' teaching method may have pros. There is a hypothesis that imitating may provide the quickest way to expand and increase complex skills. I say this as someone who enjoys experimenting and feel compelled to understand things.

Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning
Part 1 [youtube.com] Part 2 [youtube.com]

Re:Right on! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533992)

For teaching skills, perhaps. But science, on its own, is not really a practical skill for most people (how often do you run an actual experiment?). The benefit and the purpose for teaching science is to teach people to think skeptically and logically, to learn to examine the data.

Re:Right on! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534282)

For kids, it HAS to be practical! Kids love to see stuff work due to their actions. Just knowing that it works isn't enough for them, and showing them the chemical reaction on a sheet of paper is most likely boring them, while having them actually carry out some experiment is surely exciting for them. Also, a lot of chemical reactions (well, the kid-appropriate ones at least) teach you patience and carefulness, because you have to wait for the reaction to happen and you have to make sure to measure and weigh carefully and take care to keep the workplace clean, or else it won't work.

Re:Right on! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534372)

That's not the kind of "practical" I meant. I meant practical as in "being likely to be effective and applicable to a real situation; able to be put to use", not "based on practice or action rather than theory or hypothesis".

Re:Right on! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533964)

You really don't understand children, do you? Suddenly they now have a reason to switch the channel and watch something less educational...

Re:Right on! (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534106)

You really don't understand children, do you? Suddenly they now have a reason to switch the channel and watch something less educational...

As opposed to the #1 Nielson spot the discovery channel gets each week among adult viewers... :)

Re:Right on! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534206)

Considering my favorite show growing up was Magic School Bus, I'm pretty sure that some kids actually (GASP!) like being educated if it's entertaining.

Re:Right on! (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534062)

teaches kids to ask "why?" and devise experiments to test ideas.

Straight from the "too little, to late" pool: much good it will do them when the corporate boss will say "Because I said so. And, BTW, this is 1... pray you don't count to 3".

</pessimistic>

Re:Right on! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534298)

Boss? Get my papers ready, you have two weeks.

By the way: Three!

Re:Right on! (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534126)

I have a couple points

1) while I do not agree with NCLB, I find it very interesting that all the states have to do is opt out and promise to keep trying harder, and keep a better paper trail. Now if this actually worked in the first place our education system would not be a chunk of shit in the first place. Holding states accountable is a joke and we have proof, so this whole song and dance was just a glorious waste of time.

2) please watch some daytime PBS, its poor mans nick jr today, and while some shows may be edcucational, its probably going to go out the window cause after 1pm its all cartoons until evening

Re:Right on! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534188)

Do more? With any luck, it might remedy the dumbing down of the curricula the NCLB bullshit got us.

And while I doubt that it will be more than the rote spell science, this alone is already maybe enough to get kids interested in science. I know it worked for me to watch the various education TV shows as a kid (that's what we had on Saturday mornings, no cartoon network for me). The "why" comes by itself once the child is interested in something.

Re:Right on! (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534322)

I can't help but wonder exactly what the viewership stats for Sesame Street are these days. I watched it as a kid, but that was ages ago when cable TV was brand-new (actually it might have been just before cable TV came around).

Now with all the corporate-crap channels, including Disney (which is a sad shadow of what it was in decades past), I seriously question just how many kids will even see this.

This will lead to nothing but confusion (5, Funny)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533634)

What about when they get to E=MC2

Because last time i checked, C is for cookie, thats good enough for me

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533660)

But wouldn't you rather have cookie squared?!

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533710)

Cookie not square. Cookie round.

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533812)

Why is that cookie GLOWING?!?

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533882)

Eat=Me*Cookie^2

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534296)

I wish I had mod points.

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533962)

Because last time i checked, C is for cookie, thats good enough for me

You, like me are too old.

Cookie Monster has been castrated. Cookies are a "sometimes food", and he mostly eats vegetables now.

And Elmo is the antithesis of all that was ever good about the show.

Re:This will lead to nothing but confusion (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534134)

c is for carob, that's good enough for me.....ew

Who is this "Murry"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533674)

Murry? Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker are the only muppets that should be conducting experiments!

BILL! BILL! BILL BIL! (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533678)

Is Bill Nye dressing up as Big Bird?

Re:BILL! BILL! BILL BIL! (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533732)

Bill Nye was awesome! ah good times, watching that show. I never did get into beakman's world though, the rat disturbed me.

Re:BILL! BILL! BILL BIL! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534016)

Bill Nye is OK if you didn't have access to Mr. Wizard. Bill Nye's show was way too fluffy and tended to make science a freakshow. Mr. Wizard was a lot more sedate and the science he used was much more front and center without the cheap gimmicks.

Bill Nye is an evil doppleganger (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534046)

The only true TV scientist is Beakman [imdb.com] . Bill Nye is a Beakman wannabe, 100000x less interesting. But Bill had the backing and so Beakman was lost to us all.

Re:Bill Nye is an evil doppleganger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534370)

No, Mr Wizard was awesome.

Quiet, Unassuming, and coolly intellectual, but still showing awesome stuff you can do with science. I remember distinctly the episode where they disccussed different kinds of radiation.

almost single handedly fostered my interest in science, and for a long time as a child, I wanted to become a scientist when I grew up. (Sadly I became an engineer instead...)

Re:BILL! BILL! BILL BIL! (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533816)

And Mr Wizard as Oscar?

Sounds great to me (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533772)

If Sesame Street helps reduce the frequency of math-phobes in our young population, I will be eternally thankful. Too many people have escaped learning math due to being afraid of it; if they are introduced to it at a young age they might not develop an irrational fear of it.

Re:Sounds great to me (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534004)

Math is not scary to learners because it's hard, it's scary because it's boring and tedious drudgery. Nothing takes the fun out of gambling like a statistics class. Nothing takes the fun out of a trig class like being forced to memorize or derive all the identities. Nothing takes the magic out of Calculus faster than the epsilon-delta definition. Nothing takes the fun out of earning a computer science degree more than being forced to learn maths that 99% of programmers never use.

Re:Sounds great to me (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534210)

Nothing takes the fun out of gambling like a statistics class.

Depends which game you're gambling on...

Re:Sounds great to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534338)

Computer Science *is* math. If you don't understand that, maybe you should have gotten a "programming" diploma from DeVry instead of a CS degree.

Re:Sounds great to me (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534022)

The reason people are afraid of math is usually around the time they get an 8th grade math teacher, you know, after all the easy stuff is over and they get boring Mr. so and so who will explode your brain with geometry, algebra and trig that he barely understands himself. You know, the guy who actually has negative creativity and sucks it out of anyone he speaks to. The guy who is capable of putting students to sleep from across campus. Yeah, that guy. It then becomes a case of learn the formula, try to pass the test, another term over with, rinse, repeat.

Re:Sounds great to me (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534050)

That helps, but ultimately math phobia seems to generally be the result of incompetent instruction and sometimes poor instruction plus some sort of learning disorder. It definitely could be a matter of a small sample size, but that seems to be the cause. That and the societal acceptance of math as being hard and scary.

Re:Sounds great to me (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534054)

I'd make my kids watch it, but they like math and they're afraid of monsters.

*sigh* It's not easy being green.

fubc4! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533774)

of aal legitimate But witgh Netcraft BSD culminated in fly They looked

binary (1)

ad1217 (2418196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533776)

Yes, now my idea for an awesome episode ending can come true! "This show was brought to you by the letter 01000001"

Totally Bogus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533782)

Kids can not learn math from sitting there staring at a TV.

Re:Totally Bogus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533916)

They can't? Why not? Please, cite your references and provide examples.

Re:Totally Bogus. (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534130)

Agreed. It's not as good as a parent--it's not enough, without a parent--but I've seen kids watch television with math problems and do the math problems. It's pretty normal, I imagine, among children who have been taught to do math in the first place.

Re:Totally Bogus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534138)

Sure they can. I'm a math professor, and I first learned how to take derivatives of functions by watching The Mechanical Universe when I was a teenager.

Eins Zwei Drei (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533794)

If you're going to have the government teach your children, at least use the correct language. National Socialist Worker's of America need to know their native language if they are to complete their shovel ready jobs.

Combustion (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533804)

I for one would like to see Elmo experiment with fire.

Sorry, I meant "experimented".

Re:Combustion (3, Interesting)

Phizital1ty (1755648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533946)

St. Elmos Fire?

Alarming amount of propaganda (-1, Flamebait)

hessian (467078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533856)

There's an alarming amount of pro-liberal, pro-government and pro-business propaganda on Sesame Street in addition to the lessons of childhood. I wouldn't trust it any more than late Soviet propaganda.

Re:Alarming amount of propaganda (1)

ohmygodatoyrobot (1272508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533978)

Sounds like the worries of the John Birch Society. Write a blog entry about it on Anus.com?

Re:Alarming amount of propaganda (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534156)

Seems like a natural consequence of having any political actors on the show. It's the naive part of me, but I still think having the first lady on can be neat, regardless of which party is involved.

I have a 19 month old... (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533884)

We don't watch much TV (I watch one NFL game a week and we do some Netflix streaming) and our son definitely doesn't (and probably won't watch much more than football even after he reaches the suggested age of two). However, after observing the TV watching habits of those with children we know, especially one who proudly placed a photo online of their child watching Futurama, I'm going to guess that STEM education via PBS isn't as going to do as much as they may hope.

Re:I have a 19 month old... (1)

whong09 (1307849) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534020)

I really encourage you to reconsider your opinion of television shows like Sesame Street. I'm studying to be an engineer at a prestigious university and my personal experiences lead me to believe that I was inspired by shows like Sesame Street, The Magic School Bus, and Bill Nye to go for a science and math oriented career.

I think your son would definitely benefit from watching more than just football once in a while.

Re:I have a 19 month old... (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534108)

It has nothing to do with me being against TV for children. It has to do with us choosing more traditional routes to interact with our child than TV time.

Yes, you can watch and interact with the TV as a family but I'd much rather be outside doing something or playing with a hands on toy than watching the new Sesame Street.

But hey, raise your child as you wish, it's a free country. Just please don't plop him in front of the latest Fox adult-tailored cartoon and call it good.

Re:I have a 19 month old... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534170)

I like Elmo's new catch phrase: "Lets ENGINEER!"

If that doesn't send a once-more-into-the-breach-dear-friends chill down your spine, you're not cut out to be an engineer.

Re:I have a 19 month old... (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534168)

We don't watch much TV (I watch one NFL game a week and we do some Netflix streaming) and our son definitely doesn't (and probably won't watch much more than football even after he reaches the suggested age of two). However, after observing the TV watching habits of those with children we know, especially one who proudly placed a photo online of their child watching Futurama, I'm going to guess that STEM education via PBS isn't as going to do as much as they may hope.

The education of an individual is a lifelong process. Sesame street might be able to help for a few moments, but of course it won't do everything.

bCizn4tch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533886)

Goodbye...she had hype - BSD's Join GNAA (GAY WASTE OF BITS AND Will not work. And people's faces at The project followed. Obviously Community at Abloc in order to

Mi mi mi mi mi! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533902)

Surely they can bring Bunsen and Beaker over from the muppet show...

Today's episode... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534030)

is brought to you by the Avogadro number [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Today's episode... (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534354)

I can see the Count now: "The number of the day is 3, Point, 1, 4, 1, 5, *ha ha ha*, 9, 2, 6, 5, 3, *ha ha ha*, 5....."

Much, much later in the episode....

Count (very tired): "... 2... 8... 1.... 3... ah, I quit!" (collapses from exhaustion)

Mee Mee Meep! (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534066)

Please say this means more Beaker and Bunsen. While more Muppets than Sesame Street, they could still have a (hilarious) place in such education entertainment.

Of course, Bunsen might need to learn a bit of science, first...

I'm OK with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534078)

I'm OK with Sesame Street teaching anything short of religious tolerance and legal rights. That's such a landmine that I'm certain the second they try to be inclusive of muslim characters, some asshole jihadist will want everyone killed, and that's too much of a liability for them. I'm totally making a serious face while typing this, they've in the past edited or didn't air things when they thought it would cause advertisers to drop out (Sorry that Katry Perry was too good for Elmo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHROHJlU_Ng), or send legal threats to any and all websites that make fair use of their muppet characters regardless of how fair use it is.

But I'm OK with them teaching anything they should be learning in school. I was never a fan of the show, and for above stated reasons, I'm not particularly fond of it's spineless corporate overlords, but I'm OK with them being a better educational tool than the failing US education system. Just watch out for advertisements that are a conflict of interest.

Re:I'm OK with this. (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534136)

If you stopped doing things that might provoke somebody to an idiotic reaction, you'd never do anything.

Count with von count... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534216)

1, 1 electrons, 2, 2 electrons, 3, 3 electrons, 4, 4 electrons , 5, 5 electrons , 6, 6 electrons, 7, 7 electrons!

This won't last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534222)

Come now, we all know Rupert Murdoch is not going to approve. Expect Fox and Friends to present this as indoctrinating/brainwashing our youth, compare it to Hitler-Jugend, and call out PBS for "pro-government leftist propaganda [slashdot.org] ". Then, it will just be a matter of time before Sesame Street either turns back from teaching math or gets taken off the air.

Sing it, Elmo! (2)

mianne (965568) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534316)

Johnny was a scientist,
but Johnny is no more.
For what Johnny thought was H20,
was H2SO4.

Maybe it can help me (1)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534332)

I still don't understand math. I can manipulate the symbols but I don't understand what the symbols represent. I believe that as a student in any discipline, understanding the things that the symbols represent is far more essential than being able to decode the symbols without comprehension.

Sure I have basic concepts down such as whole numbers, but more complex functions are completely lost on me.

I would be ever grateful to a math educator who could teach understandable concepts first, followed distantly by symbolic notation.

Now that you understand what I'm taking about, I'll give this concept a name: "numbers vs numerals"

My theory, probably your theory too (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534336)

When I was young, like 3-4, I had a TI-99. On it there weren't many games, so I enjoyed playing a math tutor. The math tutor was not a game, but it used graphics and was engrossing. I am now extremely good at math, with my last course being differential equations about a decade ago.

My theory is: I think if someone would come up with software, that simply engaged you, but was educational, it could educate people from K-college if you added enough content. The software can be replicated for free, is more portable than 1,000 books, and can do more than books can.

Before World of Warcraft came out(before any MMORPG), I knew there would be one MMORPG to rule them all. The same goes for the revolution in education. It is simply cost prohibitive to do the education revolution twice, but once someone does it, every human on the planet will use it.

Who will it be: Open source? Commercial? Adbased free?(ugh please no) or maybe a philanthropic billionaire wants to do it right.

I long to see the day when there are highly educated kids in the third world simply because there is nothing more entertaining to them than learning.

Like I said,"This is my theory, but probably your theory too."

Sesame Street is never going to be teaching Fluid Dynamics for Engineering, because you need so much education to build yourself up there. Television cannot do what a computer can do: Assess your education level then give you appropriate course work. This is cool because even people who forgot what they learned, but can't retake courses, can get with the program and become highly educated.

Modern man no longer gets educated and then gets a job. Modern man gets educated, gets a job if they're lucky, but never stops learning.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...