Childhood, Screens and Learning

Childhood, Screens and Learning: what are we getting right – and what needs rethinking?

There is no question that digital media now sits firmly in our society alongside childhood. I remember one colleague who I worked with (20 years ago) who didn’t have a telly at home for his family (including four children). That seems even less likely twenty years later in 2026.

Screens shape how children learn, communicate, relax, socialise and understand the world. They sit alongside the systems and structures that already shape childhood – laws, curriculum, safeguarding frameworks, school expectations, family routines and social norms.

This means that conversations about screens are never really just about technology.

They are about childhood, development, safety, learning and what we collectively value.

For educators, parents, legislators and those working in the media and technology industries, the question is not whether screens are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. That binary doesn’t really capture everything.

A better question is:

In our society, in 2026, what kind of childhood are we trying to protect and promote and, therefore, how does this affect our use of technology?

I’d be tempted to suggest that a ‘good’ childhood is the golden thread.

What screens can teach us about engagement

One thing education can learn from the media industry is that screens are, by design, highly engaging.

Children’s television in particular has long understood how to hold attention. Think about the vibrant energy of presenters on programmes such as Blue Peter. They are enthusiastic, calm under pressure, emotionally regulated and highly responsive. Even when taking on outlandish challenges, they model persistence, optimism and problem solving (and sometimes on live television). There is something powerful in that.

The content is rarely accidental. It is carefully iterated, often scripted and informed by multiple perspectives. Consultants, specialists and inclusion professionals frequently contribute to make content more representative and accessible.

In the UK especially, many of us grew up with the public service ethos of BBC children’s programming – a thoughtful mix of fun, information and education. Edutainment.

That matters. It reminds us that engagement is not superficial. Good engagement is intentional.

Schools can learn from this:

• how visuals support memory
• how tone affects emotional readiness to learn
• how pacing influences attention
• how repetition helps retention
• how storytelling creates meaning

The learning point is not ‘put everything on a screen’. It is that intentionality is important. Thoughtfully designed learning experiences matter.

What therapy and counselling can teach us about digital access

There are also important learning points from counselling and therapeutic practice.

Digital access can, when used carefully, reduce barriers.

For some children and young people (particularly those experiencing extreme social anxiety, emotionally based school avoidance, school phobia or chronic health needs) online learning spaces can offer access that might otherwise be impossible.

Sometimes (and not always) a screen becomes a bridge.

A child who cannot yet tolerate a classroom may still be able to engage with: remote tutoring, online consultations, low-pressure assessment environments, supported therapeutic check-ins, body doubling via virtual presence.

The ideas of co-regulation are especially relevant here. For neurodivergent learners and those with executive functioning difficulties, the presence of another person, even online, can help sustain focus, reduce overwhelm and support task initiation.

This is where technology is genuinely useful: not as a replacement, but as a scaffolding tool.

Neurodivergence, identity and not feeling alone

One of the most significant cultural shifts of the last decade has been the way online spaces have allowed neurodivergent people to find one another. For many children, teenagers and adults, social media has provided language for experiences they previously felt were isolated.

Suddenly, experiences overlap. A child, parent or young person can recognise different traits, e.g., sensory overwhelm, masking, attention differences. They can realise that I am not the only one.

That reduction in isolation is incredibly powerful.

Of course, this comes with risk (self-diagnosis without nuance, misinformation, identity labels that are not enabling) but there is still huge value in the sense of recognition and belonging.

At its best, digital media can support what schools should always be striving for:

counting everyone into learning.

A big question: what do we all agree childhood needs?

Perhaps the most important conversation is not about screens at all. We zoom out and it is about childhood. What do we all agree children need?

Surely the golden threads remain:

• safety
• protection from harm
• basic needs met
• love and belonging
• stable relationships
• positive social structures
• access to education
• opportunities for holistic development

Technology should never pull us away from these priorities. If it does, we need to ask hard questions.

Why money and technology do not automatically fix education

One of the persistent myths in education is that more money spent on technology automatically improves learning.

It does not.

Anyone who has worked in a school knows this. (Ask me about my ICT lesson during an Ofsted inspection if you want a specific example.)

Poorly coordinated technology, rushed implementation, inadequate training and badly chosen platforms can create more barriers than solutions.

A screen does not automatically increase pedagogical value. The medium does not transform poor teaching into effective teaching.

More importantly, technology does not replace the deeply human skills that underpin development: communication, empathy, boundary setting, conflict resolution, perspective taking, relational trust.

These are learned in relationship. At present, I remain strongly of the view that the most important aspects of growing up are still fundamentally human-to-human processes.

Children learn how to regulate through being regulated with. They learn empathy through being empathised with. They learn boundaries through navigating relationships and hopefully, having constructive conversations with teachers and care-givers. I think/hope education in the 2020s has got a lot better at this.

No app replaces that.

When technology genuinely helps

That said, there are times when technology is excellent.

It is good when it reduces barriers. This can be transformative.

It is also excellent when it provides experiences that a classroom alone cannot. Online museum collections, live geographical fieldwork, virtual tours and real-time expert sessions all widen access.

Some good examples such as Chester Zoo live lessons and BBC live lessons demonstrate offering learning opportunities many classrooms could not otherwise access.

Gamified experiences can also be powerful, but only when they enhance learning rather than distract from it.

The learning goal must remain the main thing. Intentionality.

Maslow still matters

For me, one of the biggest risks is when technology forgets the fundamentals.

Maslow’s hierarchy still applies. Children need safety before they can thrive educationally.

So we must stay alert to risks such as:

• unsafe online chats
• exposure to harmful content
• algorithms pushing extreme material
• commercial exploitation of insecurity
• emotionally manipulative design features

When digital spaces compromise safety, they undermine the foundations of learning.

Holistic development and the question of balance

Perhaps a helpful, reflective question is this:

What do you lean into online?

Is it informative?

Is it escapism?

Does it broaden your perspective?

Or does it consume you and push you towards extremes?

These questions matter for adults and children alike.

Children do not carry the responsibility for creating safe digital environments.

That responsibility sits primarily with adults:

• parents and carers
• educators
• governments
• legislators
• technology companies

Children need to be equipped with critical literacy skills.

They need help to ask:

• Who made this?
• Why am I seeing this?
• Is this trustworthy?
• How is this making me feel?
• Is this balanced?

But the burden of protection should not sit with them.

So, is the balance right at the moment?

At present, I do not think it is.

Too often the pace of technological development moves faster than our collective thinking about childhood.

Education, policy and technology need to come back to the golden threads:

safety, belonging, access, humanity and learning.

If screens support those things, they have enormous potential.

If they undermine them, we need to be brave enough to say so.