Screen time is replacing parent time, says ADCS president
Computers, mobile phones and TVs are being used as “de facto childcare” the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Service has warned.
Rachel Wardell called on the government to do more to support struggling parents, asking: “Where does parenting policy sit in government?”
Delivering a speech at ADCS’s annual conference earlier this month, she said: “A holistic view of childhood must focus on parenting.
“The effects of the world in which we now live, with the demands of daily life and the pressure to use screen time as a diversion or de facto childcare, along with the lasting impacts of the pandemic experience, are not delivering what our young children need to create the foundations for a thriving life.
“And when things aren’t going quite right and children aren’t school ready, the response is all too punitive.”
The warning comes amid increasing concern over children and young people being exposed to toxic, dangerous and age-inappropriate content on the internet.
Last week the Online Safety Act came into force requiring online platforms to verify the age of people before accessing sites containing adult content.
Social media influencers such as Andrew Tate have been cited as promoting toxic and misogynistic views in young men, increasing the risk of violence towards women.
Highlighting the need to better support parents, Wardell said childcare was often promoted as a “means to support parents to work, or work more, rather than via the lens of good child development”.
She said the family hubs currently being rolled out in communities offering a range of support to parents could provide a “real opportunity to get things right” for children.
Wardell questioned the logic of spending “billions” on addressing the “symptoms of poverty” through initiatives like breakfast clubs and pupil premiums without addressing poverty itself.
“To be clear, this funding must not stop but if we could shift resources to actually address the causes of poverty, ultimately that families simply do not have enough money, we could stand a chance of eradicating it altogether.”
Providing cash payments to struggling parents was one policy that should be considered by government, said Wardell.
“One of the moral dichotomies in policy is the acceptance that the system should financially support care arrangements for children who are not able to live with their parents, yet there is no clear offer of financial support to birth families to enable children to remain in the family home.
“I would urge government to reflect on this as the child poverty strategy continues to develop over the summer.”
The “sheer amount of reform” impacting on children and families presents an “inherent risk” of getting things wrong, added Wardell.
She repeated calls previously made by ADCS for an “overarching vision and plan for childhood”.
“A government with a child-first approach might have taken some time to pause and think about the impact of the various reforms, both individually and collectively, and what this means for children and children’s services. We may well still have landed in the space we’re in now, but at least we’d have considered this in the round.”