Jumpers for goalposts?

Action for Children is calling for parents to ‘unplug’ their children from technology and spend more time on other activities. As usual with campaigns of this sort, the message has been simplified to so blunt a point that it risks doing some harm along with the good.

I’m all for limiting the time kids — and adults — spend in front of screens. The screen is a limited form of interaction that sucks our attention away from the richer, physical world. Anecdotal research from Silicon Valley tech CEOs suggests their kids spend less time than average in front of a screen.

But screens do not equal technology. Calling for kids to spend less time with technology? That’s problematic.

For example, my six-year-old made an FM radio using an electronics kit, largely unassisted*. Is that the sort of technology to which access should be limited? She happily spends time collecting things to look at under a microscope. Is that technology? Clearly this isn’t what the campaign is targeting but by talking about ‘technology’ in such generic terms, you risk a lot of misunderstanding.

It’s a harder story to tell without patronising parents but I would argue the campaign needs to be about the type and range of stimulation children receive. Highlighting ‘technology’ as the issue is an attractive proxy for a more challenging problem, but using such a broad term enhances the case of reactionaries keen to denigrate and dismiss anything new.

Even the assessment of screen time needs to be a little more nuanced. There’s a vast difference between time spent watching My Little Pony and time spent playing Minecraft. Between playing Angry Birds (do people still do that?) and learning to code, or designing and 3D printing their own toys.

I understand the charity’s challenge: how to make a campaign that is worthy at heart, also worthy of a space in the news cycle. I’ve been there. But technology isn’t the problem here.

###
*Yes, as you can imagine, I am ridiculously proud.