Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics released the long-awaited update to its 1999 policy statement on media use by children younger than two. I am amazed that with 12 years to work on it, the AAP labored so mightily and brought forth such a mouse.
To be sure, there are valuable insights in the report -- particularly regarding background TV and the value of play, as well as the admonition that media makers not market hoped-for educational outcomes to anxious parents.
Still, despite using the term "media" in the title and throughout, there is the barest of nods to the changes in the technology environment since the original policy statement came out in 1999 ("From built-in DVD players in minivans to smart cell phone technology, today's children have more access to electronic media than those of any previous generation"). The new statement could have been written in 2001, and lost on someone's desk until last week.
In the press conference to present the new statement (captured on video by 360KID's Scott Traylor and posted here), Dr. Ari Brown said that there wasn't enough research to write about interactive digital media; however, this was just moments after she admitted that the 1999 statement was based on "limited data and cautionary principle." They could have -- and should have -- at least discussed the new world of many screens and the affordances of touchscreen devices in particular, and raised issues to be studied and addressed on both the positive and negative sides.
Not surprisingly, the AAP statement has been portrayed in the press as black and white: "It's official, to protect baby's brain, turn off TV" and "Educational TV for Under 2s Could Stunt Their Development."
Even the AAP's official "Tweet" of the study was "AAP says babies and toddlers should learn from play, not screens." They didn't say "learn from play more than screens" or even "learn from play, limit screens." This is despite the fact that the statement itself makes frequent reference to the variability in children's development and the possibilities that learning does occur under certain circumstances.
Wouldn't this have been a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge that children and families live diverse lives filled with many things? One section of the AAP report is headlined "A Good Use of Time?" That concept is meaningless outside the context of what else children and their parents are doing: is the child surrounded by books, does the family live in a neighborhood that is safe for outdoor play, does the child get quality day care, is the baby also given open-ended toys or art supplies, and so on. (Not to mention, who among us could withstand the scrutiny of whether every minute of our time was best spent!)
My wife, a teacher, has long wanted to produce a poster showing a group of diverse children -- all sizes, all shapes, all colors -- with the tagline "they don't' learn alike, either." The same is true for children's media -- not all screens and not all content are created equal. Surely, when a child enters a pediatrician's office, he or she is treated uniquely, so why has the AAP reaffirmed its 12-year-long monolithic view of children, families and media?
Follow David Kleeman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@davidkleeman
Children and Media . PBS Parents | PBS
Unraveling new media's effects on children
Children and Electronic Media - Kaiser Family Foundation
Report Ties Children's Use of Media to Their Health - NYTimes.com
AngelasClues.com
The AAP report came out last week reiterating their 1999 stance that "babies should learn from play, not screens". The question isn't whether we all agree that babies should play (who is going to be against play?), but how, in this day and age, do I use this information in my everyday life? I crave information and I believe in well grounded research and advice from experts. I want us parents to be as informed as possible so that we can see the educational difference in content as we make our media choices for our children and our family. So, although it is not groundbreaking, there is worthwhile information for us parents:
- No matter how persuasive the packaging is, it is not likely that a baby will go to Harvard because he watched a baby video. (Yup, they got me too. Hook, line and sinker)
- Shut off the News: Background media is harmful to kids. Babies have been found to play less and adults interact less when the tv is on in the background. (The news stresses me out, let alone what it would do to my kids...)
- What about my free half hour? Stacking blocks in a safe play area (bring back the playpen!!) may be a pretty good alternative to screen time for babies.
- Haven't we proven that television can be educational? For preschoolers, 2-5 years old, but babies brains are different.
The study that came out when the "Spongebob" story broke was deeply flawed... 7 minutes of TV caused a decrease in attention span compared to no TV. I can lower my toddler's attention span with 7 minutes of rough-housing.
I have no problem believing that a steady diet of visually busy stuff might be bad for their brains, but they don't take into account the high amount of outside time I spend WITH my kid, read to him, let him participate in my housework... he's a little sponge... watching Elmo WITH him while he laughs at the screen and copies it with me (thinking of the drum episode where we went and got his drum to play along).
The problem is the generalizations drawn from these studies... they quickly go outside their inference space.
I remember when I was a kid and restaurant menus would remind me "Good food takes time." The same goes for good science.
Better idea? Â Limit parents exposure to TV the first two years of the kid's life. Â Tell them to swear off football, live without Kardashians and tune out other grown up distractions so they can spend time connecting with their children. Â Bet that would go over well. Â
Some of the happiest, highest achieving people on the planet live in countries where parents have paid leave to raise their infants and flexible hours to spend time with them as they grow. Many of those countries also have media policies regarding what kind of programming and advertising can be produced for children, recognizing a developing mind doesn't have the critical thinking necessary to understand what they are watching.
And if you want to understand the impact of all our screen use on developing eyes, then take a look at the increase in the need for glasses over the past few years.
No media source can replace play or healthy human contact, especially when almost all media content is being driven by huge corporations looking to cultivate good consumers, and cradle to grave brand loyalty.