If you chose not to give your children "screentime" at all before age 5, can I ask why, and how it is going?

[SwordToFlamethrower]

I'm genuinely curious about this. Kids seem to be glued to their screens and many don't seem to be aware of their surroundings, sat in prams or restaurants or family gatherings.

If you've chosen not to do screens with your kids, how are they doing in terms of socialisation, imaginative, spontaneous play and mental health.

Thank you!

I would say this was pretty normal screen time, an hour a day and wouldn’t class it as not having access to screens!

They had no access to ipads/phones as I was primarily concerned about myopia development as DH is highly myopic.

So the impact of increased close work.

Oh right I just assume screen time includes all screens.

What do you define as screens? DC are almost 6 and 7. The only time they got to use a tablet or phone before 5 was on a plane to watch a movie (less than once a year). They have had regular access to live TV and been taken to the cinema so technically not no screen at all. In my experience, they switch off live tv after a certain point, the addiction to keep watching is not there

No regrets whatsoever with restricting tablet access. They read, we do arts, play games (board/card), play with each other. If they have time in morning before school, they will play some sort of imaginary game and same for evenings. They don’t even think of asking for the tv or a tablet as the precedent has never been set.

Some school homework is electronic at times so access is given to do the work but then is taken away and they don’t dispute it (yet)

They are now getting to the stage where they want a tablet when another child has it and get glued to watching someone else’s screen so the attraction will always be there.

We are a tech family (my career was network support, Dh software projects) the kids had access whenever.

Dd23 currently doing a doctorate... tech related.

Sometimes all people see is the negative, but life can be about finding your niche. Just because she works in tech and has had a screen heavy life from a very early age doesn't mean she doesn't play piano or read or play hockey (or enjoy life).

With respect, the technology available 15-20 years back when she was primary age does not vaguely resemble what children are exposed to today. It was nowhere near as addictive and children sitting in buggies with phones in their faces was just not a thing when she was of that age.

We did no screens until 2 with both DC. Then only CBeebies until 7.

They still do not have tablets/phones at 11 and 9. They are able to go out and about (meals out, etc.) without needing electronics. They read, colour, draw, etc. I do model it though - I take a book to doc appts for the waiting room, for example.

Quite!

I'm from "tech" a database and IT manager and work in secondary schools.

I see direct consequences of kids and modern technology. So my DD4 will be limited!

My youngest ds did screen time from age this was due to his 12 year old brother having to watch him during covid I'm a nurse and was working 60 + hours nightshift a week, My dh was a keyworker and worked 8-5 . Had no childcare as my dad was shielding .
It wasn't ideal but we all had to get in with it, he's now a very happy social little boy , he does still like to game but there is a huge balance now thankfully. He's a very outdoors type of child

My kids grew up before ipads/phones and they did watch some kids programmes on tv but mostly played - board games, lego, puzzles, drawing, painting, train sets, cars, sandpit and paddling pool and bikes/scooters in garden, junk modelling etc. They played with their little action figures endlessly! They had playfights with light sabers and swords.

As they got older they did have some educational type games on the big old home computer and eventually Xbox/PlayStation games as teens. They weren't on there all day and night though as they did sports and played music in bands etc.

I don't think under 5s needs screens at all and even older primary children only occasionally for age appropriate games. I would keep them away from all social media until they're teens at least!

Mine are all teens now but we didn’t really bother with screens till they were school age. They weren’t interested and we were all doing other stuff. All social, bright, articulate, creative kids able to draw a line . My autistic child has however suffered with anxiety.

Interesting to see definitions of screens……in our home a kindle or other e-reader is definitely a screen!

Seeing as Miss Rachel is a previous SALT, I’d say that there definitely are developmental benefits for kids that watch some of her videos. That’s not to say that a child who doesn’t watch them are any worse off than those that do obviously

Your children watched TV for an hour a day. Is that somehow not considered to be screen time? I don’t get it

I think the difference now is, analogue TV was very different to today's digital and smart TV.

I wouldn't call analogue, terrestrial TV "screen time". But I would call all digital/smart TV "screen time". The nature of the way programs are 24/7, the output etc, the portable nature of TV etc.

Sorry i don’t get your argument here at all. How is my kid born in 2020 watching Milkshake on ch5 in the mornings any different to me watching Playdays on BBC in the early 90s?

We don’t have screens for our 3 under 5s and we try and avoid using our phones in front of them or at least don’t sit there on the internet or apps - which is good for us all.

The kids don’t miss it, as they haven’t had it. Instead they just play with toys and each other. When we go out to eat etc we make sure we have books and colouring crayons. In the car we chat or listen to songs.

We do have a Tonies box which is great for providing entertainment and allowing them to choose what that is.

I personally am of the camp that screens before the age of 3 are bad for language development and screens generally are not great for anyone. At some point I will have to change that view in part as the kids will need access to the internet etc for school work and to be fair there are some good things in TV. Hopefully by then they will be equipped to know that there are other things in life.

That said everyone ought to do what works best for them and their families, screens or no screen.

We haven’t seen any down sides of no screens.

We aren't screen free, I let my daughter watch up to 30-40 minutes of tv a day, but a lot of the time she doesn't watch any.

She is 3

When she was 2 I allowed 20-30 minutes

When she was 1 I allowed maximum 10-15 minutes

And before that I only used a screen to change poo nappies because she kept rolling away, so maybe 5 minutes?

I try to pick programs that aren't too fast paced, so no Paw Patrol or Cocomelon, she likes Pip & Posy, Bing, Tractor Ted

She is very patient and can sit alone and do puzzles for children aimed at 5yo, she loves going out for food in a cafe or restaurant, we walk our dog every day together. Her preschool has told me her language skills are "outstanding" for her age but she can also run, hop, throw & kick a ball. She loves books, you could sit and read 15 wordy picture books and she would thoroughly enjoy it, the adult tires long before she does. We got her a yoto for Christmas and she loves it. She's very in to role play at the moment, so I'm think of trying to do a costume box for her.

Limited my eldest when she was little, now she's crazy for the screen.
The youngest got more freedom and she isn't bothered in the slightest by it, would much rather play with toys. Even in the car she gets bored by it.

Ice learnt my lesson that strict bans are not always the best option.

I think the issue these days is that its all on demand. Whereas when it was channels 1-4 you had more control.

Both options are definitely still screens!

I would consider both of these 'screen time' although there are pros and cons to the viewing methods. Obviously old analogue TV had programmes at set times whereas now you can view kids programmes 24/7 if you wish.

I have childhood memories of TV after school. We would be waiting for the programmes that interested us (Blue Peter and Newsround in my case, I was a bit older). My brother would put on whatever was playing in the meantime - I remember endless Chuckle Brothers repeats! Whilst it needs stricter controls, in many ways I prefer it now. My children can watch 30 mins at any point in the day and see the same programmes. They loved Gladiators but it didn't matter if we were still eating dinner when it started.

Mine are both school age now and screen time has gradually increased (still limited to 30 mins a day max and a mixture of TV, computer and very occasionally a tablet). I make sure they also do other things e.g. imaginative play, chatting with us at the dinner table, games, craft and this works for us.

In my experience the difference is between live TV and apps/recordings on the TV. If I leave the TV on a live channel (including CBBC/CBeebies) my children have always watched for a defined period and then walked away. If I leave them watching recordings/iPlayer/Netflix with the remote, they will be there watching then I return an hour later.

90 books????

I do think that there is a difference between TV output and algorithmically delivered content like youtube. The algorithms are specifically designed to keep your attention on that platform as long as possible and to keep you returning - these platforms are constantly refining that by testing different approaches on small groups of users and seeing which one works best. And they are modelled on their userbase as a whole, which is majority adults.

Children are much more susceptible to this, because their brains are less developed.

Just like gambling for example is banned for children's products, I would love to see algorithm-delivered content banned for children's TV and games but I don't think that will happen any time soon. I think it is worth being aware of this aspect, even though I think in general most people are overly worried/judgemental about screen time and moderate use is not a problem.

The on-demand stuff IME can have aspects of both. If you go into the settings and get rid of some of the features (autoplay next episode, auto suggest new content, autoplay trailers, animated menus/screensavers, as well as banning any specific programmes that you don't like) then it becomes more like TV, whereas if you leave it on the default options, it's more like youtube. Youtube is especially bad for this, because it has so MUCH random content uploaded by literally anyone and then the program sorts it so that whatever people stay watching is more likely to be served up to new viewers. Rather than something like CBeebies which is created by professional TV studios and will have some kind of research and funding behind it towards educational goals. It's still all entertainment, don't get sucked into the TV-as-education stuff, but I think there is a difference between most of the dross on youtube (and if you let the algorithm run for a while, you do get to some extremely odd videos) and say, Numberblocks or Hey Duggee.

The way I see it is it's a bit like CBeebies content is like fruit and yoghurt and sausages - it's "real food", but it's palatable to kids and they are likely to choose it over say a salad and a jacket potato. Whereas Youtube type content is more like highly sugary, fatty, ice cream and doughnuts and skittles - it is EXTREMELY appealing and will always be preferable given a straight choice but it's not very good for you to consume too much of it.

I think it's very difficult to self-regulate with that kind of content.