to ask about experiences bringing up low tech kids

[rattlingaround75]

This is a hypothetical post - I don't have kids, and don't plan to have any for health reasons. Am a long term member and regular namechanger, am not a newspaper reporter, but I understand if people are wary at threads like this.

Although I don't have kids, I do think in detail about how, if I did, I might want to raise them; one thing is that, at least during primary years, I wouldn't want them to have any of the gadgets that I didn't have growing up in the 80s, and as far as poss only to be exposed to broadcast TV at home (no recorded or catchup - some other people had videos when I was a kid, we didn't), and my own home based internet use would be very limited and mostly in the study. (This all assumes similar standards of living to what my own parents had, including space for a study in the house.)

I feel that schools like Acorn: www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/29/the-no-tech-school-where-screens-are-off-limits-even-at-home
with zero screens policy for home and school go slightly too far; some TV is good to have contact with the cultural context, and I am glad I learnt some programming in primary school (computers then felt like a work tool, not an addictive leisure activity - I only knew one kid with games computers and they were really bad at the games).

Do people manage to get nannies who won't put kids to play on tablets and phones and use them in front of them? Older nannies? (I realise all this would be undoable using childminders and is a luxury or SAHP choice!)

I would be a lot more laid back re teens as I think it's really important to be involved in contemporary pop culture at that age, but I would want a kid to have a grounding of how to manage / be/ entertain themselves without the web and of "slower" ways of thinking, and of not expecting the instant gratification of TV on demand. (Really, I think it would be great for the internet to be for adults, like driving is, you'd learn more social skills before you used it, as my own generation did, never having used it as kids, but that's not how it works, sadly.)

I did know one of those families with no TV when I was a kid (which was the 80s equivalent) ; they were very serious people, but I found their house rather romantic and intriguing.

I'd guess that because this is the internet, the families doing this might not be around to talk about it, but maybe people tried and abandoned it because it was too difficult? or have friends who do?

My nanny doesn't let the kids on the IT unless I specifically say they can

My kids are low tech but not no tech.

I think being able to use technology will be a distinct advantage in the future.

My Dad can use a phone. Slowly, no short cuts, but he can use it. My brother has his fully customised to do all sorts. I am competent and quick but haven't customised as much as I have a lower grade handset.

I think if all three of us were same age, qualifications and experience, except our tech skills, it wouldn't be my dad getting the job. IYSWIM.

I personally think there's nothing wrong with technology in moderation. In fact it could be argued that without exposing your kids to some technology in their formative years, you're actually disadvantaging them in later years. We don't live in the 80s any more right.

Dsd who is 8 is being taught how to code right now. I'm teaching her html/css as it's fairly simple and inituitive, but the plan is to teach her application languages so she can build her own apps. Can't do this at Acornz

I don't get the no recorded or catch-up TV thing at all. The way to make sure that your children watch the things you think are suitable and avoid stuff that isn't (including adverts) is to use DVDs, TV services and catch-up. Mine didn't know live TV existed for quite a long time.

They are still small and not allowed internet without a parent supervising. It astonishes me that some of their peers can just pick up a tablet and go on e.g. Youtube or interact with other gamers whenever they like and without oversight.

I do think low tech not no tech is the way to go. Children need to know how to use it in moderation, which neither a total ban nor unlimited access will teach them.

I think you're over thinking it and that you would be putting your DC at a disadvantage when they start school. ICT is part of the curriculum and they get homework that needs to be completed online too - DS had some homework a couple of weeks ago where he had to look at news headlines on the internet and then write a summary of the three that interested him the most. He also gets phonics work that's computer based. There was a mum at school who didn't believe in screens, thought they were evil and rotted children's minds and so on. She very quickly went out and bought a tablet when she got her DC's first school report home and had it in writing that her child was way behind the rest of the class in ICT.

Schools also use prerecorded programmes as part of some lessons.

There is a happy balance between square eyed zombie and zero screen time.

Also, I'm a childminder and your assumption that we rely on screens when looking after children is a little insulting TBH. The TV isn't on during the day unless it's for something specific related to whatever we're learning (for example, I recorded a Show Me Show Me about post when we were doing some activities related to letters and the post office) and I don't use tablets or laptops to placate children, again they are only used sparingly and for educational purposes.

Yabu your kids will use computers at school, and at friends houses. Why stop st the 1980s? Why not the 70s? Or the 1880s?

Don't use kids to make a statement, they're human beings who have to live with your choices and will resent not having any of the stuff their friends do

It's like denying them books. They would be severely disadvantaged.

Bringing a child up now with low-tech is nothing more than an exercise in futility, limiting their future choices and holding them back due to some romantic ideal of your childhood.

If you think that the world isn't moving more and more towards becoming technology-dependent then it's time to re-evaluate your views.

I wouldn't say your ideas were cruel but would absolutely say that you'd be failing in a very big way to give them the best chances for their future.

Whilst I work in tech, I'm careful to limit screen time and access to it for my children.

I'm teaching them Arduino as opposed to html but DailyMail is on the money.

Mine are low tech but not no tech.

Not really due to a conscious decision but because I'm a single parent and a teacher. I spend so much money on their dancing and theatre stuff that there just isn't enough left over for them have to have much in the way of expensive possessions.

We have a tv but it broke years ago and it's never come up as a priority for fixing.
I have a laptop that belongs to my work which the children can use if they need to. We also use it for Netflix.
I have a smart phone which they can use if they want to. Also has Netflix and Spotify.
My oldest (just turned 14) got a PAYG phone this September because she started at Senior school quite a distance away and needed one.

We don't have iPads, Kindles, iPods, Tablets, Gaming systems and the like. I have nothing against them, they just haven't been priority buys for us.

They do of course know how to use these things because they use them at school or at friends' houses.

If they ever start to resent not having them they'll just have to do fewer dance classes or stop music lessons. But I don't think that's a trade off they would enjoy.

Do people manage to get nannies who won't put kids to play on tablets and phones and use them in front of them? Older nannies?
Our nanny never turns the TV on, she is quite young. As long as you are clear about it from the beginning it should be fine.

I am curious as to why you would want broadcast TV but not recorded/catchup? Genuine question as we are doing the opposite, we don't have broadcast TV, but watch on demand/videos. This way we "choose" what we and the DCs watch, instead of sitting down and watching the random program that is on at this time. Also it means less commercials.

Computers/tablets, I think you will have to let them access it or they will be disadvantaged. You can however control what they do, ie not watch Youtube clips for hours for ex.

I don't let my 2 sit on TV all day.. They get a certain amount, then it's "go play out", or "imagination time". They have time limited tablets, etc. "Managed tech" I like to think of it as. But kids should be kids.. Aware of the world, not just the tech.. So we go swimming, walking, cycling etc. I've even taught them to use a payphone... Just for the hell of it.

They like tech, but they also like real life..I think we have a nice balance in the main..

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum in that I have no desire to limit my children's access to technology. I limit what they can do with it, but the actual technology? I feel that it is important to be able to use it.

rattling I'm confused as to why you would want to bring a child up as if it was the 1980s? Or why you think that be an advantage to them?

It would in fact be a serious disadvantage to them. The ability to interact with technology and build skills in this area is something that this generation are doing naturally as part of their childhood. To reach your teen years and be unable to use a technology at the level of your peers would be a serious disadvantage educationally as well as in the eyes of any employer.

My DC are in primary school. They have to create power point presentations as part of their homework and then present their work to the class.

I didn't learn how to create a power point until University, but it's a standard skill for 7 yos now.

My DC create essays using Word and complete Maths tests and programs using online applications.

They use school sponsored online learning applications for spelling too.

My DC have digital cameras to create artistic photo montages and often use their kindles to read books. They create stop motion animation together using their stick bots and an iPod.

They FaceTime with relatives on the other side of the world and regularly email friends who've moved far away.

You appear to have a view that technology is bad for children, but I'm not clear on why?

My DC do play computer games but they also play with Lego, dolls, on their bikes and roller blades, do arts and crafts and all the things children did in the 1980s.

It's not one or the other.

It's perfectly possible to raise your child in a technology rich environment without just sticking them in front of an iPad all day. It's not the technology that's at fault it's the parenting.

I don't know any no tech people and like a pp, my god daughter was learning about programming at primary school.

this might be just as important for her future as my love of books was at that age.

I think there would be a major issue in going "no tech" in that it's not fair to the child and if every other child is learning to do tech before then how will other kids catch up?

also mystified by the live TV thing. I see that you would want to teach children to wait for things but we all have to wait in queues in all kinds of places, or they might only be allowed a pudding on a particular day or whatever, so if it's about avoiding instant gratification, there are other ways to enforce that.

One argument to be made, is that all the tech available now, was created by people who had no access to much of it as children. My kids don't have iPads or phones, still primary age, and yet manage to bring home home certificates for coding. Glowing reports, great concentration bla bla bla.... we have close to 400 children's books and they are in the top level in reading/literature. I don't actually let them watch TV directly as I prefer catch up etc. It's all saved into a folder for them, less adverts, more choice, and when it's finished it's finished. I'd say being very low tech has had a huge advantage, they can sit in restaurants etc. without making a fuss, because they're used to being bored sometimes, thinking of their own games, telling stories or jokes. They aren't placated with screens every time we're doing something. That being said, I do think cartoons after school some evenings, and between other stuff on the weekends doesn't hurt them. Sometimes they do need a bit of a mental wind down as they seem to have so much homework and the school have very rigid expectations. My kids are now in pj's watching planet earth. They've just had their chocolate from their advent calendars. It's not dickens, but I like that they're all talking about what they're watching and there's some shared enjoyment. I am, of course, on mumsnet

I don't like live TV either. So I've given dsd a Kindle and programmed it to switch off after 1 hour of TV. She absolutely loves Shawn the Sheep right now.

Because this is a hypothetical child, not a real one, I assume one similar to myself as a kid. I pick all sorts of things up extremely quickly, including new software, and on that basis it just wouldn't be a disadvantage. If you're 12 or 13 and able to be at the same level with PPT after a week or two, as average kids who've been using it at a lower level for years, there's nothing to worry about. (And besides I would have wanted them to be programming at primary age, and using Office type software a couple of times a week as a specific lesson, where the computers are separate, not pervasive. Creating an imprint of them primarily as for work, and that it is possible to be away from them for long periods before introducing other stuff. A number of my relatives of different ages are addicted to computer and internet stuff, so this seems particularly important. I can get very immersed in it, but the sense of peace from not using it for days is immense, and I really appreciate the depth of thinking that comes from that. Denying a kid that would be worse IMO)

Broadcast TV - I think catch-up is a big driver of instant gratification as a wider cultural phenomenon, and only choosing what you're already interested in creates a bubble; exposure to an assortment that wasn't actively chosen by the person concerned, especially for a kid, can lead to new interests and wider general knowledge: news, the kind of factual programmes that are on in the early evening. I got a lot out of those.

Or the 1880s?
Sounds like a good idea for a holiday project for a week or two!

I'm with treaclesoda I've absolutely no desire to limit my kids knowledge of technology, what it can do, how they can learn from it, how it works, advances in communication, in learning, the ability of people to learn new skills/receive an education through technology in ways that they wouldn't have been able to previously, access text books, first hand knowledge, look at live pictures of events. I limit what they can do with what they have but no I embrace technology especially internet access. I don't look at my childhood and learning through rose tinted glasses - I'd have bloody loved looking up things on the internet as part of my education, I probably would have stayed much more engaged in education.

You have left out your reasons why you think this is important..?

We are low tech but ours are under 4. Occasional films is all they get - no tablets, telly etc

I prefer recording stuff for the kids, as that way all adverts can be skipped. But sometimes we do see the adverts as it is important for them to know that pester power exists, but they won't get everything they ask for.

Tablet time is limited, I want the kids to learn how to accept boredom, for example on long car journeys, but they do need to know about technology as their world will be full of it, and there are great educational apps out there.

I prefer recording stuff for the kids, as that way all adverts can be skipped. But sometimes we do see the adverts as it is important for them to know that pester power exists, but they won't get everything they ask for.

Tablet time is limited, I want the kids to learn how to accept boredom, for example on long car journeys, but they do need to know about technology as their world will be full of it, and there are great educational apps out there.

I'm of a similar mindset to the OP. I don't buy the argument that kids need to be exposed to tech in order to know how to use it - most tech these days is so user friendly that you can pick it up within days. I bought an iPad and used it straight out of the box - it's not like I needed lessons on it.

I don't like the way schools rely on screens so much these days either. I am pretty low tech with my kids - they are allowed some TV (on demand, not live) and I have resorted to letting them see stuff on my phone ONLY to get them through distressing situations (hospital, hairdressers!) but we never use it in restaurants etc.

There are more important life skills than learning about technology, such as drawing or making conversation or inventing games.

If I could find a way to get them through school life without iPads etc then I will take it.

Unfortunately due to peer pressure and schools I don't think we will manage many more years of low tech, but I will resist it for as long as possible.

I am quite addicted to my phone and iPad and I hate what it's done to me - that's actually where I am coming from in my stance on this issue!

I'm fine with using technology to alleviate boredom too. I do it myself - read my Kindle or phone when I'm in the dentist's waiting room etc. I don't think there is anything inherently 'good' about being bored.

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum in that I have no desire to limit my children's access to technology. I limit what they can do with it, but the actual technology? I feel that it is important to be able to use it

This for me too.

I was at primary school in the 1980s. We had tech.

There are more important life skills than learning about technology, such as drawing or making conversation or inventing games

Sure - but technology is just another medium of doing this. I have a friend who is an amazing artist - their preferred medium is tech-based. Why should creativity be limited to pen and paper if their desires shoot another way?

I haven't found it that difficult.

I'm not a TV watcher, so we just have Freeview, and they watch CBeebies or age-appropriate DVDs/films. Still a treat, not a daily occurrence.

No games consoles. I'm a gamer but I game on the PC when they're in bed. It's addictive, they'll play adult games someday, that day is not yet.

We have a family tablet, which again, comes out for the occasional treat. Literally "Let's play [game]!" and we play it and it goes away again. It's not a 6 hour marathon thing, nor something they can access whenever they wish.

And they haven't batted an eyelid at this. They ask politely for TV and I say yes, they don't demand it. Now they're getting older they might say 'Can I play X on the tablet?' and I can say yes or no, they are fine with it.

They watch the popular TV shows and films so they can talk to other children about them. My son plays a little Minecraft on weekends, so he can talk about it. They fit in just fine.

We teach my son to code, and how to research, but it's something I do with him sat by me, side by side, and when the tasks are over the PC goes off. Again, it's a tool, we use the tool, we put the tool away. I don't leave him on it for 10 hours unsupervised.

I like them to read paper books, not ebooks, and I do encourage things like reading and drawing because these skills can easily skip if left with instant-gratification activities like games or internet use.

Basically it's common sense, really? Most parents who are putting in some effort to be good parents will encourage playing outside, going for a walk, climbing a climbing frame, reading books and painting pictures, alongside technology. No one's actually claiming giving a kid a tablet and ignoring it for 18 years is a good idea.