To think to much fuss is made about 'screen time' and that most people must be underestimating their use of it

[lecce]

Surely most dc are going to have jobs that are largely screen-based and being familiar with technology from a young age is not going to stand in their way and can only be beneficial.

And it must depend on what they are doing on said screens - Wii is interactive, can be played with others and involves movement (I am totally out of breath after the Let it go dance sequence). How bad can it be? Ds2 would be on it all day if we let him, but he has learnt several of the dance routines and can perform them without the music - it's a skill, no? I am a bit of a technophobe myself so learning with my dc really and have little knowledge of the other stuff that's out there, but I'm sure it all develops skills of some sort or another.

Is my ds1 spending hours hitting a ball against a wall really so much more worthy than the other boy doing his dance routines just because the latter involves a screen? I know as parents we need to encourage our dc to have a range of interests - mine do 2-3 activities each and we do outings quite often, as well as boardgames, reading, craft for ds2, musical instrument learning for ds1 etc. Is it really so bad if most of their 'free non-parental involvement time' is spent on screens?

I seem to remember a fair few hand-wringing reports over the years about children watching 3 hours of tv a day, but if they are up for 12 hours and doing other stuff the rest of the time, is that really so much?

What do others, honestly, do?

It is noticeable that children who have parents who read, value literacy, speak to them and generally interact with them have better results all round - increased social emotional results, general knowledge etc.

I do all that and both my dc are in the top groups of their classes. Ds1 especially has fantastic general knowledge; ds2's doesn't seem as good to me but is still commented on favourably by his teachers. You can value reading etc and still have a fair bit of screen time on the go. I think you have to allow an awful lot of it, and perhaps have other stuff going on for it to have a negative impact.

Well Lecce...you just carry on "doing all that" AND letting them have unlimited screen time. You're obviously a time lord as well as an expert on everything.

Me too, Lecce. I read with my kids and did other stuff with them. But I never dictated what they did with their downtime. Children need to learn to self-regulate these things and to make the appropriate decisions.

I know kids who get no screen time because they don't have any but who also get no interaction either. That lack of interest and interaction from parents is a lot more damaging imo.

lol my older son has a job at tesco and the majority of his job is sorting out screens and the bagging area

I did sound a bit of a boastful twat in that last post, but I'm not sure where I've claimed to be a time lord .

I haven't made this clear and have probably suggested otherwise, but in fact I do limit their screen-time. It's just that I wonder whether I should to the extent that I do. My head says (backed up by the googling I have done - not claiming it's extensive) that it's fine. For some reason though, I get this sense of guilt when they opt for the screen for the third time that day. I am just wondering if there is any logic in that, and I'm really not sure that there is.

YABU I really worry for future generations. Technology is growing too rapidly :( it'll be our downfall one day. I believe screens aren't very good for our eyes and people's literacy skills are already taking a huge knock because nothing seems to be handwritten these days. Humans have become so lazy... your child will get more exercise with a ball than with an ipad.

Doesn't being on the internet and playing games often involve reading though?

I think it's a very useful tool, especially for kids who just don't enjoy books.

It is absolutely possible to do both - but children who have screen time at the expense of the other suffer deeply. It is, however, very noticeable that children in Nursery and Reception classes have TV as their cultural norms, for example, if one was discussing monsters, TV monsters would be named before literary ones. Children have fewer points of literary reference than they did. I have yet to meet a parent over the last 5 years who has not mentioned their child's technological skills - use of Ipad, computer, mouse, remote etc.

We live in the technological age, we need to embrace it. But to be able to manage technologically is not a skill, it is a current norm. I would rather children could listen, speak, interact and question. Google may be the modern king; I would rather children had a mind, an opinion and the wherewithal to support their theories.

I read an extremely interesting article where Steve Jobs had said that he wouldn't let his children have iPads/screen time and that none of his successful Silicon Valley colleagues did either. The very people who are developing/selling these devices to us are keeping their children well away from them!

Literacy is not being able to write by hand, in fact most people write more words than they did 30 years ago.

It's a bit depressing the number of teachers portraying anecdotes that all assert screen time is bad, but the research doesn't back that up. How do teachers even know how much screen time kids get? The real problem of course is you cannot tell how much screen time is the result of completely disinterested parents (lots of solid evidence this is bad) vs. those kids who get the same amount screen time but have their parents participating in it.

Controlling for parental interest is extremely hard of course, but glib statements like a ball will give more exercise than an iPad are not helpful - overall you simply don't know that a ball gets boring very quickly when you're on your own. An iPad used to look up which birds you're seeing on a walk in the park will do more.

It's not simple, but the evidence is not there that it's unquestionably bad.

I read that too about Steve Jobs etc.

ANewMe, was this the homeschooler you meant? Didn't think she was on MN but I remember this article (DM though)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520667/Unschooling-children-teach-games-life-experiences.html

SingSongSlummy Steve Jobs also tried to cure his cancer with acupuncture and spiritualists... I'm not sure we should listen to everything he says.

'angst poetry writing' that did make me giggle TheAwfulDaughter.
I seem to remember writing a bit of it myself along with wallowing in the heartbreak of unrequited love.

Context: I spent literally hours on the internet as a child (about 6-8 on weekends from when i was 13 or so), but it was forums... Reading, writing, discussion and debate. I also read books at a ridiculous rate (i queued at midnight more than once for one particular series) and i still do. Fwiw ia a secondary school teacher.

My brother had his own internet line put in, such was his obsession. He same later to reading than me, story books at least, but he was reading game guides online years before. He works as a programmer now, so i guess it did no harm to him either.

You can't say "all screen time is bad screen time" any more than you can claim it is only ever positive. What is important is what the screen time actually is. Kids tv is excellent now, with clear educational goals. Surely we can use it as a starting point for something more without treating it as a demon? For example... Watch an episode of Mr Bloom's Nursery then go outside together to plant some bulbs.

That's exactly how my dd is, TheAwfulDaughter. She's 20. She likes gaming but that isn't all she does. She does a lot of drawing with her drawing tablet (and sells commissions online). But she has learnt to self-regulate. She has known from a young age that if she's got work to do then she needs to get that done first. It's not something I've had to monitor too closely apart from the rebellious bit when she was 17 .

If my DS had his way h would sit and watch stampy videos or play minecraft all day. Nothing wrong with a bit of screen time in moderation but he needs to do other stuff or he becomes horrible.

If he had his way, when he's not on the screen he would just read books. He loves reading and reading is great but only to a limit.

As his parent I have a duty to force him to do other things, mainly physical exercise, as he would never even think to go out for a run on his own.

There was a nursery teacher on the news last night saying that she was very worried about some of the babies who come into her nursery.

Instead of picking up toys and "playing" with them, they think by touching them or "swiping" them like an Iphone/pad they will do something.

I find that very worrying.

"What is important is what the screen time actually is". I think this is key.

I'm surprised by claims that children knowing more about tv characters then literary ones is somehow new, we're about 30 years into the age of children having lots of videos and children's tv at home. When I was a school in the 80's, children were drawing the decidedly un-literary figures of Lion-O and Donatello.

I wonder about this too and I feel guilty about the amount of screen time DS (age2) has.
We often watch TV together and talk about it in the same way that we would talk about a book - who's in it, where are they, what are they doing, how do they feel, etc. Why is that less valuable because the medium is electronic rather than paper?
He knows how to use an iPad but is also happy to sit with me or on his own and read for 30 minutes plus. He's very active and sociable.
Should I feel guilty when I really can't see that it is doing him any harm?

.........not until you get to 3+ hours a day

This ^ is crucial.

OP, you are debating if parents should limit to 1 hour a day, or 2 hours a day. However, there are many, many, many families out there who never turn the TV off, and who allow their dc to play on all sorts of games devices for several hours at a time, day after day. I suspect those posters who are arguing strongly that families should limit screentime are the professionals who work with children from these families. There's a massive difference between what you are describing what you do with your dc, and what we know many dc's lives consist of.

Siennasun - that's not an issue at all. There are loads of things that are much more fun to watch or much more easy to explain with all the wonders that TV have to offer - but the crucial thing is that you sit there and talk with your dc - many, many people don't.

But doesn't that come back to interaction etc? My kids enjoyed their screen time but we'd talk about games or what my dd was blogging about and all kinds of other things.

I think it's the interaction and interest that is crucial. There have always been disinterested parents.

When I was a child the only device was the tv (that was on a lot). We'd watch programmes as a family and laugh together and learn and discuss. I also ran around outside a lot and read avidly.

I think quality counts too. Different programs/ apps/ games have different benefits to others.

I notice that DS1 gets irritable if he spends too long watching videos on the computer or games on the tablet. They're not entirely bad things as the videos have inspired physical games he plays, and the tablet games are good for literacy, but he definitely needs his time on them moderated. Moderation is the key for so many things.