There are patterns you start to notice when you work with young children long enough. Changes in attention, communication, emotional regulation, and play often appear early, long before anyone names them as concerns.
Reading the Department for Education report Children of the 2020s: home learning environment and screen time at age 2 gave language to some of those patterns, and raised questions we still seem reluctant to ask, particularly about who is being judged and who is being supported.
Not to skim it. Not to pull out a headline. But to sit with what it is actually telling us, and what it might mean for educators, families, and very young children right now.
The report itself is careful and measured. It avoids panic. It avoids blame. But when read alongside what many of us see in classrooms and early years settings, it raises uncomfortable questions about inequality, early childhood, and the environments we are quietly normalising around our youngest children.
This is a reflection on the research, its resonance with practice, and the questions it quietly asks but we too often leave unspoken, drawing on my experience as an educator.
What the research is really pointing to
Screens are now a routine part of life for very young children. Almost all two year olds are using them daily, often for longer than existing health guidance suggests. Higher levels of screen use are associated with lower early vocabulary development and increased emotional and behavioural concerns.
The report is clear about one important thing. This is not evidence of direct causation. Screens are not being blamed as the cause of these outcomes. What the research identifies are patterns and associations, and those patterns matter.
One finding in particular lingers. Higher levels of screen exposure are strongly linked to socioeconomic disadvantage. Children from lower income households are more likely to experience heavier screen use. That alone should shift this conversation away from individual parental choices and towards the wider conditions shaping family life.
Screens are rarely the issue on their own
In practice, screens are rarely introduced because parents do not value play, interaction, or learning. More often, they appear because families are under pressure.
Parents are balancing work, childcare, siblings, finances, transport, mental load, and exhaustion. For many, a screen offers a brief pause, a way to cope, to get through the day, to manage competing demands. Framing that as neglect or moral failure is not only unfair, it misunderstands the reality families are navigating.
At the same time, by the time children reach school, the effects of heavy reliance on screens can be visible. Difficulties with attention, communication, emotional regulation, and independent play often show up early. Naming this is not about blame. It is about acknowledging the consequences of environments that leave parents with too few realistic alternatives.
Screen time as a structural issue
What stood out to me most while reading the report was not screens themselves, but what many families are missing.
When bus fares make a trip to the park unaffordable, when baby and toddler groups cost ten to twelve pounds an hour, when parks are poorly maintained or feel unsafe, and when Sure Start centres and community provision have been stripped back, screens step in to fill the gap.
If we are serious about reducing harmful reliance on screens, guidance alone will not do it. Families need access to real alternatives. Free and local library rhyme times, safe and walkable play spaces, affordable transport, functioning community hubs, and properly funded early years and postnatal mental health support would do far more than any leaflet or recommendation.
Without these, advice about screen time risks becoming another example of expectation without infrastructure.
Where technology genuinely helps
None of this requires an anti technology stance.
For many SEND children, technology has been genuinely transformative. AAC devices, screen readers, text to speech tools, and flexible digital pathways have opened access where barriers once existed. For EAL learners, digital tools can support language development, confidence, and inclusion in meaningful ways.
The pandemic also showed that technology can provide flexibility when traditional systems fail. These benefits are real and worth protecting. The question is not whether technology has value, but how, when, and why it is used, and whether it is supporting development or quietly replacing experiences that matter.
Why experiential learning still matters
For young children, learning is deeply relational and embodied. It happens through talk, play, movement, routine, repetition, and shared experience.
This kind of learning is particularly powerful for SEND and EAL learners, where sensory engagement, context, and real world meaning often matter more than abstract or screen based input. This is not a rejection of digital tools, but a reminder that screens should not become the default simply because other options are harder to access.
What we do with this
Perhaps the most useful way to think about screen time is not in terms of good or bad, but in terms of balance, intention, and displacement.
What is the screen replacing. What opportunities does it close off, and what does it make possible. Who has genuine choice, and who is operating under constraint.
Research like this should not be used to judge families. It should be used to inform policy, funding decisions, and the rebuilding of community infrastructure. If we expect families to reduce screen use, we have a responsibility to ensure that realistic, accessible alternatives exist.
The most important question may not be how much screen time is too much, but what we owe families if we expect less of it.
More writing like this is shared through my newsletter.
