Screen time for under-fives should be limited to one hour a day, parents told

Screen time for under-fives should be limited to one hour a day, parents told

The government has introduced new guidance recommending that children under five limit their screen time to no more than one hour per day. For children younger than two, it advises against allowing them to watch screens without adult supervision. The guidance encourages parents and carers to avoid fast-paced videos and, where possible, to engage with screens alongside their children. One suggestion includes “screen swaps,” which involve taking breaks from screens to read stories together or play simple games, especially during mealtimes.

This new advice represents the government’s first practical, evidence-based recommendations on screen use for young children. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson described the approach as precautionary, noting that “this is still quite an unknown area in lots of respects.” The guidance was developed following a review of research by children’s commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza and Department for Education scientific adviser Professor Russell Viner. Their findings highlight that prolonged, solitary screen time can disrupt children’s sleep and reduce physical activity, both critical for healthy development.

BBC News accompanied the Montastier family from Manchester as they attempted to reduce screen usage in their household. Alexis, mother to four-year-old Romi and one-year-old Marlo, described screen time as “a topic of conversation every day – because we do it every day.” As a yoga instructor, Alexis often relies on screens to free up time for tasks such as cooking or packing school bags, sometimes using screens to manage early wake-ups or prevent conflicts and meltdowns. Although she felt guilty about this, she acknowledged the practicality of the occasional screen break, saying, “you’re not always going to be getting out of bed bouncing with them at six o’clock and setting up art and crafts.” Despite initial enthusiasm, she admitted that enforcing the new limits was challenging, stating, “we’ve tried our best,” although the ideal of eliminating screens completely was not achieved.

Researchers at the University of East London’s Institute for the Science of Early Years have been investigating how fast-paced screen content affects young children’s brains. Professor Sam Wass studies how three-year-old Alex’s brain responds to rapid sensory input, noting that when content progresses too quickly, children’s stress responses can be triggered. He explained, “If stuff is coming at us too fast, something called the fight or flight stress system kicks in, where your heart starts beating faster and you start to get a lot of energy released to your muscles.” While historically children’s programmes tended to be slower paced, today’s digital content is characterized by rapid movement and frequent dialogue, a shift that still requires further study regarding its impact on young viewers’ emotional regulation.

The guidance also clarifies that screen time restrictions do not apply in the same way to assistive technologies designed to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Bridget Phillipson emphasized that the advice aims to offer practical help without judgment: “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.” Moreover, the guidance advises avoiding artificial intelligence (AI) toys and tools for young children. However, Vicki Shotbolt, founder of Parent Zone, highlighted the difficulty in completely shielding children from technology, especially AI devices in the home, observing, “the idea that we can completely keep them away from it is probably flawed, but it’s good general guidance.” Meanwhile, the government is also consulting on whether to ban access to many social media platforms for under-16s, following an emerging international precedent

Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More