Near a cardboard cutout of Daniel Tiger, a small stuffed version of Curious George and plenty of promotional posters in the PBS Kids office, there sits thick stacks of graduation invitations. Most are accompanied with handwritten letters from students extolling the influence children’s television shows had on their journeys to donning the cap and gown — one fresh grad writes that she plans to become an elementary school teacher thanks to PBS.
Sara DeWitt says that while the office has seen its fair share of letters over her two-plus decades with the network — fielding scores of wedding invitations and even more to birthday parties — it has not received so many graduation announcements until this season.
“The outpouring of support is helping remind us why this work is so important and what an amazing impact it has on lives,” DeWitt, the PBS Kids senior vice president and general manager, says. “We see this outpouring as proof of the thoughtfulness and intentionality of the media we’re creating — and that it works.”
The deluge of encouragement comes amid a flurry of actions from the U.S. Department of Education and the White House moving to pull national funding from the Public Broadcasting Service. Justifying the ordered change, the Trump administration argued that spending public money on media groups like PBS through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is “not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” especially considering there are “abundant, diverse, and innovative news options” in today’s media landscape.
The funding cuts would threaten to dismantle public television, long seen as a safe viewing space for children and parents alike.
As PBS leaders fight the loss of funding, they argue that it may not only spell the end of PBS programming like “Arthur,” “Clifford the Big Red Dog” and “The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!”; it could also be detrimental to the foundation of research focused on children’s media.
And when there are more options than ever for children’s entertainment, advocates say that producing research-backed, high-quality, non-commercial options for families — particularly those who live in low-resource areas — has never been so important.
‘No One Else Is Researching as Much’
While most parents trust PBS programming — citing it as more trustworthy than any other media source for 22 straight years — many do not know the guardrails put in place to ensure shows are both informative and entertaining, giving the one-two punch necessary for educating children.
“They don’t necessarily understand production, but they sure are appreciative,” says Shelley Pasnik, principal investigator for Ready to Learn programming, a 30-year effort from the federal government that helps to develop educational media. “Once they start to engage and have the space to slow down, they think, ‘There’s a reason I trust the media coming from PBS Kids.’ It’s joyful, and educational, and we’ve heard that in our formal research process.”
Dave Peth, the creator and executive producer of PBS show “Lyla in the Loop,” has worked on other educational media in his 20-plus years in the industry, and he says “no one” deploys the level of rigorous research and testing used in PBS programming.
“Lyla in the Loop,” for example, goes beyond showcasing a family of six living in a Philadelphia-esque city. Peth originally began developing the show in 2015 to focus on computational thinking, which deploys strategic thinking patterns commonly used in engineering and computer science. Nine years later, the show premiered.
“It’s not uncommon for a PBS broadcast series to take a fairly long time to develop,” he says. “Yes, it does take extra steps to make sure what we’re building is based on solid research on what works in education, but it’s worth it.”
PBS works with advisers — ranging from educational researchers to psychologists — who create a framework of learning goals based on studies and topics that are age-appropriate for children. Producers use those frameworks when creating content for the network — whether it’s a televised show or a game on the PBS Kids app — while ensuring it remains engaging and fun for children. PBS also brings in research evaluators, like Pasnik, who take proposed stories and present them to children, evaluating their comprehension and engagement. Any takeaways and adjustments are made in the final story and applied to future episodes.
There is also a large focus on “child-centered content,” designed specifically for the age of the target audience and how much they can process. For example, most PBS Kids episodes are 11 minutes, accounting for children’s shorter attention spans and how much they can retain in a single sitting.
“PBS allows producers to take the time and do it right; we don’t take shortcuts,” Peth says. “You step back and realize, ‘Yes, we are making a contribution,’ to the media landscape and to kids’ and families’ lives.”
The research is particularly important because, as a public media company, PBS regularly and publicly posts its findings for others to build upon.
Federal funding, like the Ready to Learn grant, accounts for about 15 percent of the PBS total budget, costing each taxpayer roughly $1.40 per year, according to PBS. PBS also receives support from foundations, programming dues — and, as many will recall hearing at the end of each PBS episode, from viewers like you.
The Ready to Learn grant saw its funding from the U.S. Department of Education cut in May, prematurely ending its current five-year run, leaving $23 million untouched and stopping its research work immediately.
If this slashed federal spending leads to programming cuts, proponents of the network say it will be tough to replicate the scale of what PBS produces, along with the decades of research conducted by the corporation and the know-how to deploy it.
“It’s like asking, ‘Don’t you think other universities can do the kind of high-quality research Harvard is doing?’ No, I don’t,” says Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a director of Temple University’s Infant and Child Laboratory. “They don’t have the people, the labs and the sustained support.”
‘A Benefit to Society’
In addition to the research and programming being done at a national level, PBS is also in the unique position of spanning about 330 local stations. Most of those affiliates work directly in their own communities, offering workshops, camps and other engagement efforts.
“They’re bringing this programming that builds off these characters that children love and relate to, and bringing the learning to them,” says Seeta Pai, vice president of education and children’s media at the PBS Boston-based affiliate GBH. “That’s what these stations are uniquely suited to do; they’re the boots on the ground.”
Those local outreach programs are particularly important in what some call “low-resource” areas, meaning places where children live in lower-income households and have less access to broadband internet or information centers like libraries.
“I see [PBS programming] as a resource for those that may not have access to other material goods,” says Rachel Barr, professor and chair of the department of psychology at Georgetown University. “What’s been found, again and again, is that access to educational content is more predictive for learning, for academic outcomes and social outcomes. And again, the effects are strongest for families that don’t have access to other material resources.”
The studies showcasing the positive effects of PBS on children’s learning seem endless. A 2015 study showed children who watched “Super Why!” had stronger literacy skills. That same year, a study found viewers of “Peg + Cat” had stronger mathematical skills. A 2021 study found “Molly of Denali” had better problem-solving skills. Several researchers that EdSurge interviewed pointed to a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, asking teenagers — the first to have grown up watching “Daniel Tiger” — about the show, with almost all respondents not only remembering it but also specific episodes and lessons learned.
“We hear on social media almost daily about something like that,” Pai says. “There’s the short- term impact with children’s learning but it’s also a benefit to society. Kids who had more early childhood education are likely to do better in school and life; that prevents societal expenses later on down the road, whether it be crime or poverty.”
And with roughly half of U.S. children not attending any formal early childhood education program, the supplement of PBS’ research-backed programming could make a difference for their future academic and social-emotional performance.
For years, PBS supporters have argued that government leaders should consider these stakes before reducing support for public media. Mr. Rogers famously testified to that effect in front of the Senate in 1969:
***
***
Video courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
More recently, in 2023, an appropriations bill proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Shortly thereafter, advocacy coalition Protect My Public Media asked local broadcasting stations how they would be affected. Roughly 230 responded, nearly all stating that the loss of federal funding would cause “imminent” cuts to staff and programming. Twenty-six stations confirmed that they would be forced off-air, and 23 more stations would need to reduce their coverage areas.
That threat was eliminated. But now, faced with its current threat, PBS has already started shrinking. GBH, which created PBS standouts like “Arthur” and “Molly in Denali,” laid off some staff earlier this month, while at the national level, PBS furloughed roughly a quarter of its Kids division.
The Paradox of More Media Than Ever
President Trump’s executive order calling for cuts to PBS argues that there is more media than ever to access. Indeed, the YouTube Kids app amassed over 145 million downloads in 2024, and the majority of streaming networks all offer “kids” profiles stuffed with shows like “CoComelon,” “Bluey” and “Ms. Rachel.”
But that embarrassment of riches ironically makes choosing high-quality programs more difficult than ever for families.
“We’re all awash in content possibilities, but much like parents say it’s a full-time job reading emails for children’s schools, it can feel like a job to find content beneficial for kids,” Pasnik says.
Children spend plenty of time on screens regardless of the content, equal to more than two hours of their day on average, according to Common Sense Media, a nonprofit focused on media and its suitability for children. Screen time only increases when accounting for lower- income versus higher-income homes. According to the most recent census from Common Sense Media, children from lower-income households (those earning less than $50,000 a year annually) spend nearly twice as much time with screens compared to those from higher-income households (which make $100,000 or more a year).
Hirsh-Pasek, of Temple University, compares media consumption to a diet: If you cut out nutritious food, children will either turn toward more unhealthy food, like desserts, or eat less in general, akin to going hungry. She views the funding hit against PBS in the same vein.
“It’s creating a digital desert,” Hirsh-Pasek, who also serves as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says.“Our high-quality programs are the nutritious stuff. There is so much out there that isn’t good for kids. If you take away the stuff that is [good], you’re leaving kids with digital junk food.”
Starting in the 1990s, the Children’s Television Act required broadcast television to air a dedicated amount of educational content and limited advertising during children’s programs. The rise of streaming and online entertainment undermines that guardrail.
“The expansion of the media landscape is a little jarring; we are having kids watch TikTok and Instagram Reels and YouTube videos that don’t have a foundation of research,” says Amaya Garcia, director of preK–12 research and practice at the think tank New America. “Just because you can access it on YouTube for free doesn’t mean that content is high-quality and appropriate.”
Many entertainment options for children claim to be educational and have good intentions but still lack the research-backed methods employed at PBS. Baby Einstein, for example, was regarded as quality programming in the mid-1990s, eventually selling to Disney. However, several studies found that it created no additional benefits, with one even finding it inhibited babies’ language development.
“Researchers can see what children attend to — and they may attend to a lot of things, but they may not learn from it,” Barr, the researcher from Georgetown University, says. “That’s where the PBS grants look at what children are gaining, versus attending. And that’s the difference between a business model and an educational model.”
Garcia has seen the media landscape change even among her three children. With her oldest, born in 2008, “We watched lots of PBS,” she says. She did less of that with her second child. With her third, born in 2019, there was a pivot toward watching shows via the PBS app.
“It’s definitely changed and gotten harder as the kids have grown up, but I also had the foundational experience of looking at media, of what is good and bad,” Garcia says. “The bottom line: We want high-quality public media that’s accessible to kids. Even in light of the evolving media landscape, we still need something parents can trust and rely upon.”
GBH’s Pai believes younger parents especially, who have grown up with screens, have less understanding of what makes for high-quality programming.
“As the tsunami of content has increased, there’s also an increased need for media literacy,” she says. “It’s almost like we’re educators making the curriculum in school: There’s a level of expertise that we bring. And the brand equity is so high in terms of trust … but it’s almost like they’re taking it for granted that it’s there.”
Those working on PBS shows or for the PBS corporation were all hesitant to speak about the organization’s fate as the funding fight continues, instead focusing on highlighting the benefits the network can provide for children in the interim.
“I can’t possibly predict what’s going to happen, but what doesn’t change is people’s need for growth, and kids’ need to expand their minds and gain new skills,” says Peth, of “Lyla in the Loop.” “So as long as that very human need exists — producers like me and others, and PBS, are going to continue to make content to serve that need.”
