Roy Suryo
New government guidance, informed by extensive research and expert review, strongly recommends that children under the age of five should have their daily screen time capped at a maximum of one hour. Furthermore, the advice stipulates that children under two years old should not be exposed to screens unsupervised. This comprehensive guidance, the first of its kind to be evidence-backed and practically oriented, aims to provide parents with clear, actionable strategies to navigate the increasingly digital landscape of early childhood. Ministers have emphasised that the guidelines will be subject to ongoing review as scientific understanding of the impact of screens on young minds continues to evolve.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson articulated the government’s cautious yet proactive stance, stating, "This is still quite an unknown area in lots of respects, and we’ve taken a precautionary approach." The recommendations have been meticulously shaped by the insights of Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, and Professor Russell Viner, the Department for Education’s scientific adviser. Their review of the latest evidence highlights a significant correlation between prolonged, solitary screen use and detrimental effects on crucial developmental pillars such as sleep patterns and physical activity. This concern is underscored by the stark statistic that approximately 98% of children are reportedly engaging with screens daily by the age of two.
A cornerstone of the new advice centres on the concept of "screen swaps," encouraging parents to actively replace screen time with more beneficial activities. This includes dedicating time to reading stories together, engaging in simple board games or imaginative play during mealtimes, and fostering shared experiences that promote social and cognitive development. The guidance also stresses the vital role of parental example, positing that children’s brains are highly receptive to imitation. As the report states, "children’s brains are like sponges – they’ll copy your screen use habits," underscoring the importance of parents being mindful of their own technology consumption and prioritising present, engaged interaction with their children.
To illustrate the practical challenges and potential benefits of adhering to these recommendations, BBC News followed the Montastier family in Manchester for a week as they embarked on a journey to reduce their children’s screen time. For mother Alexis, a yoga instructor, screen time is a daily negotiation. She admits that screens often serve as a convenient tool for managing the demands of family life, from packing school bags and preparing meals to pacifying early risers or preventing meltdowns. "It does make me feel guilty for doing it, but you’re not always going to be getting out of bed bouncing with them at six o’clock and setting up art and crafts," she confided.
Alexis found the transition to stricter screen time limits to be a significant undertaking. "At the start of the week I was like, ‘Yeah come on, we’re going to do this,’ and by the end of the week I thought we would have no screens and everything would just swap perfectly – but it didn’t really happen like that. We’ve tried our best," she reflected. She noted that some alternative activities, particularly during the demanding morning and after-school periods, were more time-consuming than anticipated. "I need that time, so I’m not going to swap it to sit down and read a book because it’s not realistic," she explained, highlighting the delicate balance parents must strike between adhering to guidelines and managing daily realities.
Her husband, Marciel, acknowledged the inherent difficulty of setting boundaries when parents themselves are frequently engaged with screens. As someone whose work necessitates considerable screen use, he experiences the ‘rush’ of checking his phone for professional reasons, a habit that often extends beyond work hours. Despite the initial hurdles, the Montastier family remains committed to the process. "This has definitely made me more aware and almost made me start doing things that I’ve always said, ‘Oh, we need to do that,’" Alexis stated, acknowledging the positive impact of the guidance on her parenting awareness.
Further insights into the impact of screen content come from researchers at the Institute for the Science of Early Years at the University of East London. Professor Sam Wass, who has been studying the brain activity of under-fives using advanced sensory caps, expressed particular concern about the pace of modern digital content. He explained that when content unfolds too rapidly for a child’s brain to process, it can trigger the "fight or flight" stress response. "Of course, this isn’t actually useful anymore, because this is happening when children are sat still on a chair watching screen content," he observed, pointing to a potential mismatch between evolutionary stress responses and modern sedentary screen consumption.
The nature of children’s programming has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two to three decades. Professor Wass noted a significant shift from the generally slower-paced content of the past to the rapid visual and auditory stimulation prevalent in today’s digital offerings. While the long-term effects of this evolution are still being thoroughly investigated, there is mounting evidence linking the consumption of fast-paced, unpredictable content to emotional dysregulation – an impaired ability to manage emotional responses. "This is something that we need to be looking at carefully," Professor Wass urged.
It is important to note that the guidance regarding time limits is not intended to apply rigidly to assistive technologies used to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Education Secretary Phillipson reiterated the government’s empathetic approach, stating, "I know there are lots of pressures on families, and the intention behind the guidance is not to be judgmental, but to be supportive and to provide that clear practical help that parents have been telling us they really want to see."
In addition to screen time limits, the guidance advises caution regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) toys and tools for young children. Online safety campaigner Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly tragically took her own life after exposure to harmful online content, welcomed the new guidance as a "hopeful sign" and a testament to evidence-based advice. While acknowledging that concerns surrounding teenagers’ technology use might be more prominent, he stressed the importance of early intervention, stating, "There is evidence… that says the earlier you start to do something about this, the better."
However, Vicki Shotbolt, founder of Parent Zone, an organisation dedicated to supporting families in navigating online safety, offered a pragmatic perspective. She noted the pervasive nature of technology in contemporary life, making it challenging for very young children to entirely avoid digital interaction. "A small child under the age of five who’s got an AI smart speaker in the house will be interacting with it," she pointed out. While acknowledging the potential flaws in aiming for complete avoidance, she commended the guidance as a valuable general framework, expressing hope that parents will not become unduly anxious. The consensus among experts and parents alike points towards a growing recognition of the need for mindful and moderated engagement with digital media in the formative years of childhood, supported by clear, evidence-driven recommendations.
Nana Banana
Ramos Leo
Nakalama John