To ask if you shield your kids from technology?

[fuzzypicklehead]

Had an interesting visit from some relatives this week, with a much different approach to education and child-rearing than my own and it's left me pondering.

I let my own kids (2 and 4) watch (selective)tv, and probably have it on more than we should in the winter when the weather is crap. They have some Leapfrog type reading and writing toys, and I will also let them have limited, supervised use of my laptop, ipod and wii. I try to balance it with arts/crafts/sensory activities, board games and traditional toys (cars, dolls, cookers, etc) and plenty of running around and playing time.

Our relatives have a much different view of technology. They don't have a TV, or use battery operated toys, video games, etc. Their children attend a non-traditional school (I think we're not supposed to mention them on mumsnet) where there is also no technology and exposure to reading/writing is delayed until 7.

I guess I was just struck by the Mum's reaction when the kids wanted to share their toys and especially when they asked to play together on the wii. She was visibly uncomfortable, almost anxious when her kids were trying out these things which were obviously completely new to them. Almost as though the technology was dirty and she was worried her kids would be damaged or corrupted by it.

I know it's not recommended to let kids watch TV before 2 years old, but is it that weird to let toddlers access technology after 2 as a part of a balanced routine?

I guess it's their choice, but do wonder how the kids will handle technology when they go out into the world on their own...who knows what developments will have been made by then?

Worldgonecrazy - Your reasons sound very... well... reasonable. Despite being childishly in the thrall of touch screen technology, I also restrict TV, access to computer etc

It's just common sense, you want children to experience everything in moderation and you have a right to raise your children as you see fit (within reason)

I do get irritated though when people starting talking about technology damaging a child's development, leading to autism etc (these are comments I have seen on mumsnet) There is so much potential to help children with communication difficulties through the (judicious) use of touch screens and to dispense information and advice via the internet. It's not all bad.

Given that technology for the masses seems to become easier and easier, I wouldn't really worry.

NT, I am with you, I think it is silly to think that technology can damage a child's development (unless it's a 3 yr old playing videogames for 7 hrs in a row every single day).

And I totally agree that touch screens etc are wonderful for people with communication difficulties.

Having said that I like a bit of both - I have grown up with the internet, I am part of the generation whose brains are apparently weird differently due to access to tech. It really has done me no harm.

But I still limit tech for my kids, not because I think there's anything wrong with it or that I don't recognise that's it's useful, but because most tech is so incredibly easy to use there's just no need to spend so much time on it when basic fine and gross motor skills, vocab etc can be developed much much better doing other things, need more time spent on them to develop properly and are more important to master early on.

If I want DD to be able to code for example, having good maths and literacy skills as soon as possible will help her much more than being good at using visual/touchscreen apps at an early age.

I'm not suggesting that kids that are not exposed to PCs etc are at a disadvantage in their later development. I'm just confused by the fact that the same posters are arguing the flip side i.e. kids are better off without tech toys.

Kids are not better off for having early exposure to PCs but kids that aren't exposed to PCs are better off. I need to think about the logic behind that argument.

I would say that kids are better off without tech toys if they use them at the expensive of other more traditional toys which develop their skills better.

eg if you never use pencils/pens and learn to write with your finger on a touchscreen you will be at a disadvantage when trying to di all the other things that require a pencil grip (like hammering a nail into a wall)

But I assume cases where children are only allowed to use tech toys are extremely rare.

I agree with Franca () about how it's really not that complicated to be able to use modern technology. The average UK child spends 6 hrs a day screen-bound. I'd have thought that maybe 1 hr a day might be sufficient to develop the skill of pressing a button, moving a mouse, clicking on the box to buy the next piece of upgrade technology due to the built-in redundancy of most products, etc.

I wouldn't dare to decide if other people's children are or aren't better off for being exposed to technology.

I've said that my children didn't play on the computer when they were small. Mainly because it didn't occur to me to entertain them by placing them in front of a screen pushing buttons when they were 3. Also, there were no ipads when mine were little, so if they wanted to paint we had to go for felt tips and crayons.
They aren't better off, but they aren't "behind" their peers who have started to play on the Nintendo when they were younger...

My point is, that one thing is teaching a very young child complex programming functions on a pc, another is thinking your child is advanced in technology just because they are able to operate a camera on an iphone.

It just occured to me. It is a working day. Its a bit snowy out there but apart from that, it is reasonably nice outside. So why are there all these posters on the Internet going on about how we should give technology a rest and how we should all get out there and do something else

:o

I don't get that 6 hours a day stat - surely children are at school! And if that's an average, that means there must be children who spend far more than six hours staring at a screen.

Do you want a list of all the things I did from the moment I woke up to the moment I sat in front of the pc?
Plus, honestly, I hope that when my dc are adults they'll have less time to waste on the internet than I do.

I suppose in many houses the TV is always on, and people are watching it for a large proportion of their time at home. During meals, before school, after school. Weekend daytimes. It would add up surprisingly quickly.

And yes, the average being 6 hrs, there must be quite a few who watch/use computers for more than than.

I think it's quite believable (I could go and hunt for the study if challenged), in most houses I visit there are children attached to consoles, tv, etc, for a fair proportion of the time.

Sorry, I forgot to put the at the end of the first sentence!

NormanTebbit, my daughter has severe learning disabilities and autism and technology HAS really opened up her life experiences and her ability to communicate and navigate etc, you are so right. Just think how much technology has empowered those with severe physical disabilities and visual impairments too

Fennel - "The average UK child spends 6 hrs a day screen-bound"

Where did pick up that piece of crap statistic? And when you read that, didn't you go 'hmmm. No kid I know spends that long in front of a screen'?

I have 2 deaf friends, technology has absolutely change their lives.

Here is one of the relevant reports, Childwise does an annual survey:

Childwise survey

2770 children aged 5-16 years were interviewed via 108 schools across the UK, during Autumn 2011.
CHILDWISE is an independent market research agency, specialising in work with children and young people.

"in most houses I visit there are children attached to consoles, tv, etc, for a fair proportion of the time"

A reflection of the houses that you visit as opposed to the norm, Fennel. My kids' thing was music while their mates were into scouts, ballet, swimming, dancing/singing. There are some mates who spend, IMO, too much time in front of TV or PC but nowhere need 6 hours a day simply because they need to sleep, eat and go to school. Common sense should tell you that 6 hours average is not achievable.

Whenever some disease hits the headlines the talking head will go on about how 1 in 10 adults in the UK suffer from x. Different bug and its 1 in 15 adults suffer from y. If you add up all the stats then 15 out of 10 people in the UK has some kind of disease. :o

I just followed the link "To order: The CHILDWISE Monitor Report 2011-12 costs £1500 + VAT (£1800)"

Fennel - if you want to advertise you should at least pay for it :o

That organisation is nothing to do with me. But they have summary reports freely available, and every year they publish an updated survey which gets lots of media scrutiny. I don't see any reason to think their studies are totally bogus.

The mind map thingy on the web page shows the number of hours children spend on TV, console games etc. It does not indicate that the average childs spends each day doing all of the above activities, one after the other, which would roughly add up to 6 hours a day.

Fennel - It wasn't a serious comment. Hence the :o

It does say that elsewhere - the 6hrs a day average. That 6hrs was from one of their surveys last year or the year before, but the time keeps going up yearly in their reports.

In any case, looking at the figures in isolation can be misleading.

DS has a 30 minute each way school bus trip. That means he plays on his iPod Touch for a hour a day. For his homework he regularly uses the Internet to find information. 30 min to a hour a day depending. DD's school is on the other side of town and I normally drop her off. I sometimes pick her up and then wait for DS's bus to drop him off. During the car ride and the wait she can be found texting/emailing friends, looking at the latest Youtube music videos. 30min spent on her Blackberry.

If you were to take these figures in isolation you would conclude that my kids spend too much time on their gadgets.

So I am not suggesting that the studies are bogus. Just that they are misleading in their conclusions