What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

Free Newsletters

books we're reading



« What the Herman Cain Case Reveals about Harassment | Main | Saving Men from Their Own Sex Slavery »

November 10, 2011

Why My Kids (Mostly) Don't Watch TV

Children need to interact with creation, not just observe it.

Rachel Stone

When my boys (now 3.5 and 6) were very small, they rarely watched videos. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged parents not to allow any screen time for children under age 2. Last month, the academy reaffirmed its statement, supporting it with additional research findings. The report (you can read it in full for free here) explains that children younger than 2 aren’t developmentally capable of learning anything from events on a video—contrary to what the marketers of “learning DVDs” for babies would have us believe. There simply is no evidence that children this young can learn from watching videos.

TV.jpg

The report also noted that “secondhand television”—programming in the background but not necessarily directed at children—distracts parents from their children and children from their play, with possible long-term effects on children’s attention, memory, and reading comprehension. The article went on to cite other frightening statistics, suggesting that TV watching displaces developmentally valuable playtime, reduces literacy, and is associated with negative health effects.

Not surprisingly, the AAP report makes plenty of parents uneasy. After all, popping in a DVD can keep the kids quiet and out of trouble for a while, and who wants to feel guilty about that, especially since, as Rhiana Maidenberg points out at the Huffington Post, we parents spend, on average, much more time playing creatively with their kids than they did 30 years ago? “With the ever-increasing expectations placed on parents," she writes, "maybe we also need to allow for some latitude when it comes to giving parents the occasional break [by letting kids watch TV].”

Maidenberg doesn’t say how old her kids are, but based on the activities she mentions doing with them, it sounds like they’re over 2. So in her family’s case, the AAP’s recommendation of “no screen time” doesn’t really apply. And the uses of video she describes—relaxing with a half-hour of kid-appropriate TV after some busy playtime, using a 30-minute video to take a shower in peace, and getting kids through an airplane flight without meltdowns—are clearly not the kinds of uses that has the AAP concerned about kids and media.

But not all screen time is created equal, as another recent study suggested. Children watching a fast-paced, random, and unpredictable cartoon (SpongeBob) did measurably worse—twice as poorly—on certain attention-based and problem-solving tasks than children who spent the time watching a slow-paced educational program. Researchers noted that the problem wasn’t specific to SpongeBob but applies to any show wherein “there are a lot of things happening that can’t happen in real life... and happen in fast succession.” The children in the study were 4 but apparently were still developmentally unable to assimilate all that was going on in a way that made sense in the real world. Children do some of their best learning by interacting with the “real world” through play and exploration, so it’s no surprise that a show that disrupts their sense of the world inhibits their ability to solve problems in real life, with real materials. In fact, schools that emphasize learning that’s “focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks,” are increasingly popular among parents who work for places like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. Computers can wait, say these high-tech parents, because the creativity needed to design the technology of the future is nurtured away from the screen—not in front of it.

4748349654_cdb67ec318.jpg

It sure seems like God designed us to get to know our physical environments—and everything in them, including and especially people—and creatively interact with them before we can meaningfully assimilate information that comes to us through screens. The AAP’s recommendations aren’t aimed at parents who pop in a WeeSing DVD so she can shower. Safeguarding our children’s God-given need to exercise all their senses is important; making time for play, especially play outside, and time for talking and laughing and making a mess with fingerpaints and Playdough—these things are more educationally valuable than any “learning” DVD. And a beautiful thing about kids is that a lot of the learning they’ll do—in the sandbox, on the playground, with their blocks or LEGO—they do for themselves. In time, they’ll bring that creative learning to their experience of technology, and be in a better position to use it creatively—not merely consumptively.

My kids watch shows like Calliou, Dinosaur Train, and, of course, Thomas, but we generally reserve them for "treats" or for sick days. They spend hours each day pretending, fighting, creating, and building. I’m not worried about them. The kids I worry about are the ones for whom TV is the best babysitter they have. Those born to less-educated parents, those living in poverty, and those who live in "dangerous" neighborhoods spend more time in front of the TV than middle-class kids of well-educated parents. But God created all children—not just well-off ones—to live, learn, play, grow, and create in this delicious, fragrant, messy, beautiful world. To this end, ensuring that all children get the creative stimulation they need is connected to a Christian's call to serve the poor and work for their and their families' comprehensive flourishing. How can we work together to make sure all kids get the screen-free time they need?

Share |

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey on November 10, 2011 10:21 AM

Comments

Great topic, Rachel, and nicely written. It seems that your line "The kids I worry about are the ones for whom TV is the best babysitter they have" gets to the heart of the matter. If TV and videos are a substitute for something else (playing, reading, time with parents or other kids, for example), then it's being misused.

On the other hand, I watched a ton of TV as a kid and we didn't do much to regulate the time our kids spent watching TV either. The balance worked itself out, it seems, with them being able to select for themselves how they wanted to spend their time. All of this, though was after that 2 years and yonger period ou mention. I can't remember once parking one of the kids in front of the TV at that age in order to occupy their time.

Tim

Posted By: Tim | November 10, 2011 11:01 AM

We got rid of our tv 5 years ago when our firstborn was 3, after he sat down to dinner and rattled off a large chunk of dialog from the PBC Curious George show he'd seen--10 hours prior. It unnerved me--that his brain clung so tightly to what he'd seen on the television--and he unplugged it that night. It took us another year to get up the nerve to actually give it away.

It's been an overwhelmingly positive move for our family.

So we've been tv-free for 5 years now. You should see my children when we leave the house and go anywhere with a tv--friend's houses, restaurants, waiting rooms--their eyes are GLUED to the screen.

Posted By: Anne | November 10, 2011 12:42 PM

Kids watch lots of tv, but less than a generation ago. Parents play more with their kids. But we are still being told we are not doing enough. In my mind, the problem isn't the tv, it is the fact that parent are expected to entertain children 24/7. Parents are seen as bad parents when children are allowed to play on their own.

Parents cannot spend 24/7 with kids. It isn't good for the parents or the kids. Parents need to be encouraged to allow children to play by themselves. Turning off the tv is fine (even good). But the issue seems to be unstructured play, not tv.

Posted By: Adam Shields | November 10, 2011 12:53 PM

I don't feel guilty AT ALL that my kids watch an hour of tv every day and one of them is not-quite-2-years-old. I always take "reports" that want to dictate my parenting with a grain of salt.

There ARE children who watch so much tv as to hinder their brain development. What can we do? It's sort of a paternalistic question... but free and low-cost early education options are a good solution for parents who find the need to use television as a babysitter. Low income children start school ALREADY a year or more behind their middle class peers. Early childhood education from a young age (think 2 years old) can mitigate that effect.

I'm a public school teacher, and I have seen that it works. In addition, the research bears it out.

Posted By: Robyn | November 10, 2011 1:24 PM

"It sure seems like God designed us to get to know our physical environments—and everything in them, including and especially people—and creatively interact with them before we can meaningfully assimilate information that comes to us through screens."

I agree. There is no such thing as “a baby.” There is “a baby and someone” because a baby will not survive alone. Although our culture does not recognize it as such, gestation does not end with birth. The nurturing process after birth is a continuation of the first stage of nurturing in the womb. “Mothering” is the first social event in a child's life. It sets the stage for life and developing in relationship to all others.

Posted By: Elaine | November 10, 2011 1:38 PM

Also, we only have commercial-free television in our house: Netflix streaming. I have a bigger problem with the way that advertisements engender commercialism in our youngest and most impressionable humans than I do with television itself.

Posted By: Robyn | November 10, 2011 1:58 PM

It seems to me that kids play "slowly." Things soak in and the kid controls the action. Maybe this is why the fast paced cartoons have a bad effect on the child.

Posted By: Ben W | November 10, 2011 2:00 PM

TV does serve some good functions. For example, my daughter learned the whole alphabet before she turned 3 by watching Super Why. But of course, even too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing.

Posted By: Rebecca | November 10, 2011 2:15 PM

Five years ago we move to a remote location with no broadcast TV, choosing not to invest $40 a month for satellite service. You would think that would have kept TV out of the house, but in spite of ourselves we have managed to accumulate several hundred DVD's in the ensuing years. Since old TV shows tend to give us the most minutes per dollar, instead of corrupting my kids with modern TV, they have been corrupted with the programs of my youth, Get Smart, Mission Impossible, Brady Bunch, Star Trek, Dr. Who, and The A-Team. After they finished homeschool today they couldn't wait to watch an episode of The Partridge Family. I love it when a plan comes together.

Posted By: Pastor Karl | November 10, 2011 5:54 PM

Pastor Karl, we raised our children the same way, they grew up watching old tv shows like "Little House on the Prarie","Andy of Mayberry" etc. and now they are in their early 20s and all are attending college and doing well. We also intrduced them to a lot of classical music, some 40s jazz, and other music which we knew was clean. With two of them, their professors have made some reference to certain things in some of the old tv shows, and the students were asked some question about the program, and my kids were the only ones that knew the answer, and they were pretty happy about that. They have all turned out to be great kids, they're doing well in college, and we're very glad they didn't watch today's tv programs. Even if you're watching a supposedly "clean" tv program today, there will be commercials that can be pretty disgusting and the little ones don't see to see that. I was shocked to see a tv program called "Knocked Up", and shows on polygamy and of course lots of other things we wouldn't dream of watching. Kids don't need the tv to learn the alphabet, spend a lot of time reading to your children, and they will grow up to become voracious readers themselves. I've heard that a pretty large percentage of new parents even put a tv in their baby's room, and I think that's terrible. Little ones need to learn to quiet themselves and fall asleep just like humans have been doing for thousands of years, and yes, I have had a very colicky baby, but didn't need to resort to using a television. I don't believe they should be in any child's room, but that's MHO.

Posted By: Nancy | November 10, 2011 7:23 PM

We tend to be super careful about how much TV we watch around our four-month-old. It freaked me out the first time I tried to watch a movie and she was glued to the TV screen; after that experience, we decided on no TV around her. Luckily, we don't even own a TV, but her presence in our lives has curbed our usage of Netflix and Hulu. Quite honestly, I think OUR lives are the richer because of our limited TV-watching.

I remember reading something about this study, and it said upwards of 60% (or am I mistaken?) of children under 2 years have a TV in THEIR ROOM. Isn't that surprising? I don't know ANYONE who lets their under-2-year-old have a TV in their room.... or maybe I do and I just don't know it!

Posted By: rachel@ even one sparrow | November 11, 2011 9:13 AM

Yikes, Rachel! In their room? Under 2???? That's completely nuts. I don't think teens should have a TV in their room. Parents can have more influence over what kids watch if the TV is in a common area.

Posted By: Rebecca | November 11, 2011 2:27 PM

We disconnected our cable service just under a year ago. Initially, it was to save money, but the other benefits have been astounding! Fewer attitude problems, less materialism, more family unity. Even when we had cable, my children (who are now teens) were never allowed to have a TV in their rooms. What's the point - especially when there are only 3 of us in the family? I want to spend as much time as possible with my children. So, on the rare occasion we watch a DVD, we do it as a family.

Posted By: Christina | November 13, 2011 6:59 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful article, Rachel.

I have a somewhat related observation. I substitute teach at an inner-city high school. One policy that the school has adopted is to allow students to listen to MP3 players in class while doing work. The MP3 players act as sedatives, in a sense. They keep the students calm and occupied, in their own little worlds. But at the same time, the students seem disconnected from their peers and disengaged. When the MP3 players are out, they are less likely to socialize. On the other hand, when the MP3 players are out, students are less likely to disrupt class or talk out. Without them, there would be a greater amount of fights (verbal and physical) between students and power struggles between students and teachers.

As with any form of technology, we must ask: Is the COST of the technology (isolated and unsocial students) worth the BENEFIT from it (fewer discipline issues)? God only knows.

Posted By: Lyndsey | November 13, 2011 3:40 PM

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

May 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31