After watching the NTIA listening session on screentime Tuesday night,[1] I heard Danny Go! mentioned so often that you would have thought it was a common educational tool. In the likes of Ms. Rachel, it's a popular YouTube show capturing the attention of millions of toddlers and early elementary students. Danny Go! reaches a wide audience, teaching children to move through dancing while introducing basic educational concepts like colors, counting, and weather. It's fun, interactive, and has a great story behind its cause.[2]
In the early nineties, a wave of kids' shows and toys hit the market branded as "educational," even though that claim was rarely backed by any research. Remember Teletubbies? Some parents criticized the show for offering little educational substance. In a Reuters article, a Wake Forest professor stated "toddlers learn more from an adult speaker than they do from a program such as 'Teletubbies.'"[3] The demand for education-based programming was clear. And let's be honest, Teletubbies was never exactly a masterclass in early learning. So, as parents fought for more educational content in kids' shows and products, the consumer industry answered. Fast forward 20 years later and we have Danny Go!. Is it educational? Yes. Is it technology? Yes. But is it educational technology? No.
Policymakers, parents, and critics frequently look at shows like Danny Go! on a screen and lump them in the same category of educational technology (ed tech). While Danny Go! is more educational than Teletubbies as a consumer media program, it lacks the architecture, oversight, privacy, governance, and most importantly, the pedagogical design required of true instructional ed tech. Confusing the two – tech that is educational and educational tech – has real consequences for teaching and learning.
Instructional ed tech is software specifically designed and purpose-built for formal K-20 environments, aligned to federal and state academic standards, and designed to produce measurable outcomes. In addition to the goal of increasing student achievement, the safety measures for children interacting with these tools are paramount. Unlike YouTube channels, instructional ed tech operates under formal contracts with states and local school districts and is bound by strict federal and state laws (FERPA, COPPA, PPRA, and IDEA).
Danny Go!, although kid-friendly, is not ed tech. In contrast, it is a show on YouTube that is driven by views, subscriber growth, and sponsorships. Although some of the content could be considered "educational," its primary purpose and core is to entertain children and families with physical activity, music and play. While it incorporates basic early childhood concepts like colors and counting, it is more dance party than math class.
When a legislator or parent sees children watching YouTube videos on a school-issued device and reacts by passing sweeping "classroom screentime bans," they are banning the tools that assist with adaptive reading assessments, special education accommodations, essential learning management systems, and diagnostic testing that students, parents, and educators depend on. By conflating ed tech with commercial tech, secure tools that are built strictly for learning are lost. Calling a show like Danny Go! "ed tech" misleads families, who naturally will assume Danny Go! is indicative of what is being introduced to children through technology in schools. It is not.
So should parents play Danny Go! at home? Sure! It's fun and can be something a parent can introduce to supplement a child's learning in a more entertaining and active way. However, just remember the purpose of the YouTube show aimed towards kids is to entertain. It is not the same as ed tech. This is why lawmakers and school boards must apply understanding and precision on the difference between a consumer/commercial product and an educational product and protect purpose-built classroom technology that is created and backed by research and pedagogy to support student achievement.