I have spent the past five years studying how digital products are engineered to create dependency, capture data, and shape behavior… and how they enter our schools and our homes.

I was pleased to learn that my son’s school district, the largest in the country, LAUSD, was looking at their screen policies. Their draft, however, left me with major concerns as I saw countless loopholes and red flags.

On May 19 I spoke at the LAUSD board about its draft Screen Time Policy. Three days later I published: LAUSD Screen Time Policy: 25 Loopholes.

My argument wasn’t that tech or “screen time” is bad. It’s that LAUSD’s Screen Time Policy draft had so many undefined terms that almost none of it was enforceable.

On June 23 the LAUSD board approved a revised version of its Screen Time Policy. After reading all fifteen pages, here’s my assessment.

Some of it improved: There are new sections on advertising and generative AI. The “professional judgment” loophole closed. Language was improved: “discouraged” became “shall prohibit” for district devices at passing periods, lunch, and recess (elementary and middle school only). And active and passive screen use were finally defined.

Of the 25 loopholes I identified, only one closed completely and four… got worse.

Share

Some history for context: For over two decades, public health and pediatric organizations have published screen time guidelines based on the amount of time spent on, or in front of, a screen, while falling short on providing much of any digital literacy (for students and educators alike). Screen time policies have also failed to require any enforceable product safety standards. LAUSD’s Screen Time Policy largely does the same.

A debate over minutes tends to distract from the bigger issues:

• What is the content that is being consumed by the student?

• In what context is this happening?

• What is the educator’s role in ensuring that tech is supporting, not displacing the essential role they play in a student’s education and development?

• Where are the safety standards?

• Where is the trusted independent verifiable research?

• Where is the oversight?

LAUSD’s current policy requires no independent evidence that the digital programs, apps, games, and tools work as advertised. There are no rules that keep manipulative or unvetted content out of a classroom. There’s no requirement for a teacher to take digital literacy training on these products, because the products are designed to limit educator involvement and oversight. And… “screen time” is still undefined.

As a personal example – it took several conversations with my son and his kindergarten teacher before I learned that he had been watching TV shows and playing games on his school-issued device as a reward for finishing his i-Ready work early. His teacher couldn’t say whether he was rushing through his work in order to get to a potentially more harmful “reward” faster, because neither the program nor the process required any oversight on that. (And don’t get me started on all the candy, sweets, and highly-processed snacks that are constantly offered as “rewards” throught … that’s a whole other topic that I will reserve for a separate post.)

As the LAUSD Screen Time Policy currently reads, it appears to provide more protections for the board and its vendors than it does for over half a million students.

I don’t believe that this is intentional. I believe that the board operates with the best intentions for the administrators, educators, staff, and students. Tech is moving fast. Robust digital literacy and training are non-existent. My goal is not to criticize the policy, or its makers. My goal is to highlight the most critical issues so that we can work together toward positive outcomes.

As a new school year begins, and these policies come into effect… and into the classrooms, my major concerns are that:

• There is no measurement requirement. No office is named to count a student’s cumulative screen time across the school day, only what happens on an “individual” device. The policy set caps on screen time but never provided a definition for screen time, so what are we actually counting. And equally importantly… What are we not counting, and why?

• There is no data governance. Nothing states what the monitoring software or digital products/devices collect, how long that data is kept, whether it can be sold, whether it can track or influence a student beyond its intended use, or whether student work can be used to train a vendor’s AI.

• There is no product safety standard, and no requirement for independent evidence that a program, app, game, tool, or device does what its vendor claims.

• There is no named oversight, and no one for a parent to contact when the policy is breached. By fragmenting or making it difficult to report issues, those issues live in silos. This is a practice that commercial companies use to limit accountability.

• There is no procurement transparency. There is no public list of approved apps, no record of who vetted them or how. Any vendor can call its product “curriculum-aligned,” and there are no rules for anyone to verify these claims.

EdTech is roughly a $200 billion global industry. Yet, there are no safety standards or regulations.

No matter their good intentions, the board does not know how the products it purchases impact a child’s learning, health, and well-being, or how any personal data is being used. The board only knows what the companies selling those products choose to tell it. No independent verification from a trusted source is required.

So how will we know if the tech that is entering our schools is providing benefit, or causing harm?

Section XII calls for an annual policy review, and the only feedback it requires is undefined focus groups and one student/parent survey question: “My student(s) spends too much / too little / an appropriate amount of time on devices.”

Currently, that is the only defined process to determine whether this policy is effective or not. And this is after any potential harm has already occurred. No pre-implementation review or trial or assessment. An open door process that determines how billions of dollars are spent each year. The voices, reactions and evaluations of students and families are a critical part of the feedback process. And yet, it does not ask the parents or students for their feedback on any perceived issues, harms, or even benefits that they may have experienced from using these devices and programs.

The real policy has not been written yet.

Pay close attention to this line in Section V.A: the daily and weekly in-school limits “shall be issued through District administrative guidance and updated annually.” Appendix A repeats “Guidance will be provided” under every grade from second on up. And Section XI promises still more school-site guidance later. So, it appears that the policy the board voted on is not the operative document… that one does not exist yet, and is likely being written outside of public view. That guidance will also decide what “screen time” actually means, because the policy never defines the term that it’s supposed to regulate.

The policy also appears to let every principal approve the apps teachers use (Section XI), with no written standard and no requirement to disclose any relationship with the vendor. This is a common practice for a vendor selling pencils to the district… why not tech? Who vets these digital products? And against what written standard? Are the educators who are responsible for supervising this technology trained on it? And who wrote that training; the vendor, or an independent educator?

Are teachers required to take any digital literacy training or have any understanding of how certain design features affect children’s health and behavior?

The advertising section only states that it “minimizes” exposure and takes “reasonable measures.”

Section X promises parents an explanation of how each app was vetted, but no vetting standard is defined. Vague language allows commercial companies to adopt the same terms without having to meet any defined standards. “Instructional needs.” “Technology-intensive programs.” “Reasonable measures.” “As applicable.” None are defined. Every obligation belongs to “the District,” and the District is not someone a parent can call.

Appendix C maps the April board resolution to the sections that satisfy it, and it creates more questions than it answers. The resolution asked for school-day opt-out procedures; Appendix C points to Section X, which has none. The only opt-out I could find is a footnote in Appendix A covering grades two through five.

The resolution said the policy would be “reviewed and approved” annually; Section XII kept the review and dropped the approval. And Appendix B, the district’s own research, calls for a whitelist, no autoplay or infinite scroll, a family opt-out through middle school, parent controls on take-home devices, teacher training, and disaggregated monitoring. The policy requires none of it. The policies research section lacks any real substance when it comes to the influence of design and the evidence of harm.

What LAUSD parents can do right now

Section X says parents “shall receive” their child’s total weekly device time, a complete list of every app and website used for learning (what about minutes, apps and programs that are not considered “used for learning”?), and an explanation of how each was vetted. It does not say how often, in what format, or from whom. So ask for it.

Send an email to your principal asking for the weekly minutes, the content list, who vetted each app/program/game/website, and your child’s total across all their teachers.

If enough families ask, the district either builds the capacity to answer or it cannot, and either way, that becomes public record.

Here’s a short email draft you can edit and use.

Please keep a record of all requests so we can track the responses if/when needed.

Subject: Screen Time Policy Section X request: weekly device minutes, app list, and vetting records

Hello Principal [Name],

Under Section X of the Board-approved Guidelines for Student Screen Time Policy, adopted June 23, 2026, I am requesting the following for my child, [Student Name], in [Grade / Teacher]:

1. Total weekly minutes on District-issued or District-managed devices.

2. A complete list of every app, program, game and website used for learning, and any others my child accesses during the school day.

3. For each one: how it was vetted, by whom, against what written standard, and did the person/s who approved the use of this have any relationship with the vendor in any capacity?

4. The name of the person responsible for tracking my child’s cumulative daily and weekly screen time across all teachers.

Please confirm receipt and let me know when I can expect a response. If you do not have an answer for any item requested above, please kindly let me know why so that I can pursue those answers with the appropriate party.

Thank you,

[Your Name], parent/guardian of a student at [School]

My request to the LAUSD Board

Provide an updated policy that closes ALL the loopholes. Provide clear definitions for undefined terms and vague language. This should be standard practice for a district that operates a $20.6 billion budget, not something parents have to fight for. A policy without definitions, measurement, or named accountability cannot be evaluated, let alone enforced.

Subscribe now

Share

Now that I have your attention!

It seems absurd to ban books for young children, right? But what if that were the outcome?

Believe it or not, there was once a time when a book in the hands of an infant, without close adult supervision, was considered a genuine safety hazard. Pediatricians and parents alike worried about real physical harm if young children were left on their own with a book. All kinds of things might happen:

• Choking: Wet paper disintegrating into pulp in a teething baby’s mouth.

• Physical Injury: Paper cuts on delicate fingers and lips, and heavy, sharp hardcover corners.

• Toxicity: Ingesting or being exposed to industrial printing inks loaded with heavy metals like lead.

Thankfully, there was no social media or rapid news feeds in those days to set off a fear-based media blitz claiming that all books cause harm, resulting in public health guidance advising “No Books Before Age 2.”

Back then, this issue was dealt with pragmatically. The immediate response was to educate parents on the potential dangers and on the importance of strict adult supervision. But this only solved the parent part of the equation. The pragmatic approach also called for industry reform - make books safer for babies!

Publishers were forced to examine how their materials and product design could be potentially harmful to young children. They were forced to be creative, to think carefully about design flaws in light of the young audience whose hands (and mouths) their books kept ending up in. And so, this led to some innovative safety features like soft books, rounded corners, non-toxic inks, and eventually the un-rippable board books we take for granted today.

In those years of “fear” and warnings over books, parents received not only education on the potential harms, but were also given safer options to choose from, pushing the industry forward to meet the demands of their marketplace.

So, how does this relate to screen time?

Current guidance from children’s health organizations around the globe advises: No Screen Time For Children Under 2.

But lumping all screen experiences into the same category is a lot like saying “No Books For Children Under 2,” just because “the potential for harm and misuse” exists.

There’s no question that the children’s media landscape has been plagued by developmentally harmful content for infants and toddlers. It has even been suggested that in order for parent-trusted programs to remain relevant, they have had to integrate attention-capture production techniques… not because it’s what’s best for the child, but because it’s what’s necessary for the business.

It’s no wonder nearly all children’s media looks and sounds the same. Even content labeled “calm” and “slow” typically contains many other attention-capture techniques; tricks of the trade that producers have held close to the vest. The industry’s ability to spin and control the narrative, backed by a well-funded PR machine with reach into parenting sites, children’s health organizations, lobbying groups, and major media outlets, has left it completely unscathed… and much stronger in spite of “No Screen Time” policies.

The blanket ban on screens is a serious and neglectful symptom of a systemic failure; one in which commercial agendas dominate the digital landscape, screen time literacy and guidance are nonexistent, and the lack of actionable policy is propping up tech and media companies at the expense of the critical need for investment in research and development for safer public media options for children under 2.

So rather than advocating for screen time literacy and safer intentionally designed content and innovation, children’s health organizations have been dictating “No Screen Time” guidelines while ignoring a troubling trend in the data: screen use is beginning earlier and viewing times are lasting longer. After two decades of pushing “No Screen Time” guidelines out to parents, the problem is getting worse! Meanwhile, the children’s media industry remains unregulated and untouched, emboldened to compete for children’s full attention with little scrutiny or accountability.

Not only does the current “No Screen Time” guidance fall short…

It is actively harmful. By not pushing the children’s media industry to implement important safety changes in the same way that the book industry did, it forces parents to solely bear the burden. The organizations that are meant to guide families and protect children, the same ones who have the power to affect industry-wide safety changes, have instead opted to leave the industry untouched, choosing instead to set parents up for failure. It’s worth asking if shared incentives somehow align these organizations, institutions, and the media and tech industries. At a minimum, it is easier to fundraise off of problems than to fix them. Either way, the system remains broken.

What “No Screen Time” guidance fails to account for is that each family faces their own set of unique circumstances. The numbers cannot be ignored. We know that screen use among children under 2 is nearly universal. While I agree that children should avoid screens for as long as possible, I also understand that total abstinence is not realistic for every family. And even though I was well aware of the guidelines, as well as the potential for harm, I was still unable to avoid the screen time trap for our 6-month-old. All the fear-based screen guidance is actually causing a great deal of stress and anxiety for parents who have no trusted guidance or developmentally appropriate options to turn to when “no screen time” is not an option.

There’s no argument (here, at least) that the majority of screen content currently designed for children under 2 is harmful, and that the lack of screen time literacy and intentional co-viewing adds an additional layer of harm. But there is also research that shows that developmentally aligned content that is intentionally co-viewed with an attuned adult can in fact be beneficial. We need to look past today’s commercially driven children’s media and toward a future where intentionally designed public media is providing safer options for those who are unable to abide by “No Screen Time” guidelines. We need to demand the same evolution from technology that we did from print: adult-mediated co-viewing frameworks and evidence-based developmentally aligned product design built specifically for the architecture of a young child’s brain.

When we design with safety first, and provide the funding and infrastructure for novel research (as opposed to holding up the existing research that was conducted using commercial media), we can begin moving toward critically needed industry reform. We also need to provide parents with screen time literacy skills so that they can discern between developmentally harmful and developmentally aligned content. When parents are able to identify deceptive marketing and unfounded claims of “safe” “educational” labeling and advertising, they can move beyond the headlines to determine the substance.

Let’s stop shaming and blaming and disrespecting parents for not being able to adhere to a near-impossible standard. A standard set by organizations who are failing to take on the hard work of industry and policy reform. Let’s take a page from the lesson above and soften those edges, make sure the content is safe to ingest, and provide education that is not fear-based or misleading.

THIS IS NOT A PARENTING FAILURE. THIS IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE.

About the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL)

CMRRL advances the developmental well-being of young children within digital environments. We conduct research, develop evidence-based production frameworks, design screen time literacy resources for parents, educators, and practitioners, and advocate for policy reform. Our work proves that comprehension-driven design experiences engineered around children’s developmental needs yield far better outcomes than those that are capture-driven. We translate this evidence into actionable standards and tools, ensuring every child’s digital environment meets the same standards of health, education, and well-being as the physical world.

For more information, visit www.cmrrl.org or contact: WillMaurer@cmrrl.org

My message wasn’t about specific policy points. It was about the policy as a whole, and who benefits when the definitions are deceptively vague.

What I wanted to say would take considerably longer. So I’m saying it here, and sharing it far and wide so that this message can be seen, heard, and actioned.

The Stakes

LAUSD is the second-largest school district in the United States. It is responsible for the education, health, and wellbeing of nearly 500,000 students, and operates on an annual budget of $18.8 billion. The decisions made in that boardroom don’t affect an abstract policy document. They shape the daily experience of half a million children.

So when LAUSD releases a 4-page draft screen time policy (+3 pages of additional appendix) containing 25 specific loopholes, undefined terms, and structural gaps – that’s too many red flags to ignore. And when those gaps systematically favor the for-profit tech and media companies that lobby for district contracts, it matters even more.

I spent 20 years building tech and media companies. I know how these industries operate. I know what their contract language looks like, how they position their products, and exactly what kind of policy language makes their shareholders smile.

This policy made a lot of tech and media companies smile. And as for families, it created a lot more confusion, frustration, and anger.

My SPEECH to the Board

I opened by asking the Board a simple question.

“Can anyone here provide an evidence-based definition of Screen Value?”

No hands went up.

I then asked for an evidence-based definition of what counts as “educational” content; specific enough to determine whether a Roblox game, a YouTube brain-break video, or an AI tutoring tool belongs in a classroom.

No acknowledgement.

These are not complicated technical questions. If the Board cannot define them, and the policy does not define them, then who is?

Many of the vague and unsupported terms mirror the marketing language and sales strategies of the companies whose products end up in the schools.

I don’t believe that screens, technology, and media are the problem. The problem is a policy written with enough vagueness and enough loopholes to let companies monetize our children, without evidence, without accountability, and without full disclosure.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services just issued a warning on the harms of screen use (on May 20^th), which recommends no more than two hour of screen time per day for children ages 6-18. This draft policy recommends up to three hours per day for middle schoolers.

My speech closed with four requests for what must happen before this policy is voted on.

Four Structural Reforms

1. Define every term in this policy using independent, peer-reviewed research, and remove the industry talking points and loopholes.

2. Publish the names and affiliations of every expert who consulted on this policy, with mandatory independent conflict-of-interest disclosures.

3. Require independent efficacy and safety vetting for every product before it is permitted in a classroom. Every single one.

4. Require digital literacy training for any staff member with the authority to make technology decisions in the classroom or beyond.

The 25 Issues: Full Findings

Below is the complete analysis of the LAUSD draft policy. As mentioned above, the policy itself only totaled 4 pages + 3 additional pages of appendix. For comparison, my notes detailing the policy issues are nearly as long as the entire policy itself.

LAUSD Draft Screen Time Policy | Analysis by the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab

Loopholes, Undefined Terms, Vague Language & Commercial Entry
Points

In response to the Los Angeles Unified School District Draft Policy Statement Titled, “Using Technology with Intention: Establishing Guidelines for Student Screen Time Policy”

UNDEFINED & INDUSTRY-INVENTED TERMS

1. “Screen Value” (Section IV.B) The policy states the District “prioritizes the quality, purpose, and impact of technology use over the total number of minutes.” This philosophy appears to be built on an undefined standard. The phrase “screen value” appears to be a tech marketing term, not one that is derived from developmental science or pedagogy. When “value” is undefined, it defaults to whoever is in the room making procurement decisions, which are typically vendors. Any company can claim their product has “screen value.”

2. “Curriculum-aligned” (used throughout Sections V.A, VI, VII, Appendix A) This phrase appears at least six times in the document and is never defined within. It appears to function as the primary gatekeeping term: only “curriculum-aligned” tools are permitted. But LAUSD does not specify who determines alignment, what the vetting process is, what standards are applied, or whether that determination can be made unilaterally by a teacher, who can then justify virtually any tool as “curriculum-aligned” if they say it supports something they’re teaching. iReady, gaming apps, YouTube videos… all can continue to be justified under this standard.

3. “Primarily instructional” (Section V.A) The policy says screen time “shall be primarily instructional.” “Primarily” is undefined. It could mean 51%. It could mean 90%. Without a clear definition, this word gives school sites enormous discretion to allow significant amounts of non-instructional content while remaining technically compliant.

4. “Active engagement” vs. “Passive consumption” (Section VI) The policy prohibits “passive consumption” but requires “active student engagement” for
   permitted use. Neither term is defined. This is a significant gap that vendors will likely exploit immediately. Platforms like iReady, many “educational” games, and AI tutoring tools are entirely passive from a learning standpoint (a child clicking through adaptive questions is not cognitively active in any meaningful developmental sense). Without a scientific definition of what constitutes active engagement, any product with clicking or dragging can claim exemption from the passive consumption ban, which can ultimately end up being a more detrimental design element.

PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE MASQUERADING AS POLICY

5. “Discouraged” instead of “prohibited” (Section V.A) “Non-instructional and recreational use of District devices during the school day shall be discouraged.” This is not a policy, it’s a suggestion. Compare this with the very next sentence, which uses the word “prohibit” for device use during passing periods. The inconsistency suggests that the use of vague language here may have been deliberate.

6. “Encouraged” for grades 2–5 device restrictions (Section V.B) For grades 2–5, the District “shall encourage schools to prioritize the use of laptop carts and/or computer labs...and to limit the use of one-to-one devices.” This is entirely optional. A school that chooses to continue 1:1 devices in 3rd grade appears to be fully compliant with this policy.

7. “Schools are encouraged...to intentionally balance digital learning”
   (Section V.C) Again, “encouraged.” The Device Use section, which governs how screens are actually used in classrooms, contains no mandatory requirements whatsoever. Paper-and-pencil assignments, hands-on activities, off-screen homework… all “encouraged,” none appear to be required.

8. “Professional judgment” (Section XI) Section XI grants schools the authority to “exercise professional judgment to meet student needs” in implementing this policy. This appears to be an extremely broad carve-out. It essentially allows any teacher or administrator to deviate from any guideline in this document by invoking student need. Without defined parameters for when professional judgment applies and what it cannot override, this clause can be used to justify nearly anything.

STRUCTURAL LOOPHOLES

9. The Assessment Exemption (Sections V.A, V.B, and Appendix A) The policy exempts “District- and state-mandated assessments” from virtually all screen time restrictions, including in Early Education through 1st grade where devices are otherwise banned. This appears to be the most commercially exploited loophole in the document. iReady is framed and sold as an “assessment” tool. So is virtually every adaptive learning platform on the market. Until “assessment” is narrowly defined to mean mandated standardized testing only, every EdTech company with a diagnostic product has been handed an easy path around this exemption.

10. The Gaming “Instructional Exception” (Section VII) The policy states that gaming platforms will be blocked, but then immediately creates an exception:
    “Instructional exceptions for gaming may be authorized when directly aligned to instructional objectives and implemented in a time-limited, supervised manner.” “Directly aligned to instructional objectives” is, again, undefined. Minecraft (marketed as an educational game), Prodigy Math, and dozens of other products are presented by their vendors as directly aligned to curriculum. The gaming industry has entire sales teams dedicated to getting their products classified as instructional. This exception, without independent vetting requirements, appears to directly benefit the tech companies, not the children that it is meant to serve and protect.

11. “Student-led use” of YouTube is blocked – but teacher-led use is not
    (Section VII) The policy says “The District will block access to student-led use of YouTube.” Does this mean teacher-directed YouTube use is still explicitly permitted and unregulated? There appears to be no guidance on teacher’s use of YouTube, no requirement to disable autoplay or recommendations, no restrictions on showing non-curricular content, and no definition of what constitutes teacher-led “instructional” use.

12. “Non-approved gaming platforms” implies approved gaming platforms
    exist (Section VII) The phrasing “non-approved gaming platforms” is quite telling. It acknowledges that some gaming platforms are or will be approved. The policy gives no criteria whatsoever for what earns “approved” status. This language appears to lock in gaming as a legitimate category of school software and simply shifts the debate to which games get approved.

13. The IEP/Section 504 Exemption — “Without Restriction” (Section IX) The IDEA compliance exemption is legally necessary, but the language “permitted without restriction” is strikingly broad. For-profit companies have long recognized that the fastest path to mass adoption in schools is through accessibility and IEP documentation. Once a tool is embedded in an IEP, it is legally protected from nearly any policy restriction. This language appears to create no requirement that IEP-designated tools be independently vetted for safety or efficacy beyond the IEP team’s determination, which is often influenced by vendor presentations.

14. “As applicable” for AI consent (Section X.A) The policy says the District shall
    allow parents to consent to “AI platforms, as applicable.” The phrase “as applicable” effectively makes AI consent optional at the District’s discretion. There is no AI moratorium, no prohibition on AI use pending policy development, and no definition of what constitutes an “AI platform” (embedded AI in apps is not addressed at all). This draft appears to do nothing to stop AI tools that may already be in classrooms without any regulations.

15. Phased Implementation Timeline (Appendix A) The device ban for Early Ed and K doesn’t begin until August 2026. Grades 2–3 limits don’t start until November 2026. Middle school limits don’t take effect until January 2027. There is no policy in place covering the current school year or the summer. No interim guidance is provided. This appears to create a period of continued ambiguity during which existing, excessive screen use continues unrestricted.

MISSING PROHIBITIONS

16. No prohibition on advertising LAUSD Board Rule 1251 prohibits advertising in schools. This policy does not appear to extend that prohibition to apps, platforms, or websites used on school devices. If so, this means students can be served ads, including targeted ads, on District-managed devices, and no mechanism in this policy stops it. Many companies monetize attention through advertising… even within their “educational” products.

17. No data privacy or data minimization requirements The policy appears go contain no language about what student data can be collected by approved apps and platforms, who owns that data, how it can be used, or what vendors are permitted to do with it. Student behavioral, academic, and interaction data is extremely valuable. EdTech platforms routinely collect it and profit from it. The absence of any data provision in a 2026 technology policy is a major omission.

18. No independent vetting requirement for “approved” tools The policy references “approved, curriculum-aligned applications” throughout but never establishes who approves them, what the approval process looks like, whether independent researchers are involved, or whether vendor-funded studies count as evidence. Approval processes in most school districts are often informed by vendor demonstrations, sales relationships, and administrator discretion… not independent research.

19. No ban on screens as behavioral reward or incentive The policy fails to address the use of screen time as a reward for good behavior, completion of work, or during “free choice” periods. It appears to be entirely absent from the policy.

20. “Recommendations” vs. hard limits for middle and high school
    (Appendix A) For grades 6–8, the policy lists “Recommendations: 60–120 minutes per day.” For grades 9–12: “Recommendations: 90–180 minutes per
    day.” These are recommendations, not limits. They carry no enforcement weight. A high school student can rack up 4+ hours of screen time per day under this policy and be fully compliant. The Resolution itself specifically required the policy to include “maximum daily and weekly in-school screen time limits”, but the policy appears to provide only recommendations for the grades that spend the most time in school.

STRUCTURAL & ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS

21. No enforcement mechanism for any provision The policy contains no description of how compliance is monitored at the classroom level, what consequences exist for non-compliance, who is responsible for enforcing limits, or what recourse parents have if the policy is violated. “The District shall monitor device use...using available data systems” (Section XII) is the entirety of the accountability structure. There appears to be no requirement to report results, no consequence for exceeding limits, and no independent oversight.

22. “Available data systems” for monitoring (Section XII) The monitoring infrastructure is built on “available data systems”. These are, in most cases, the same platforms and tools provided by for-profit vendors. This appears to be a conflict of interest: the companies profiting from screen time are also
    providing the data used to evaluate whether screen time is excessive. Independent monitoring tools or third-party audits are not mentioned and do not appear to be required.

23. Annual review is the only accountability Section XII states the policy “shall be reviewed annually at a public meeting of the Board.” Once per year, in public, is the sole accountability mechanism. There appears to be no mention of interim reporting, oversight body, or independent audit.

24. The Resolution Alignment table (Appendix B) Appendix B maps Resolution requirements to policy sections, implying the policy fully satisfies the Resolution. But several Resolution requirements are only partially addressed. For example, the Resolution required guardrails “by student disability category”. The policy references this principle, but I couldn’t find any actual differentiated guidance by disability category. The Resolution required “maximum daily and weekly screen time limits”. Instead, the policy only appears to provide ranges and recommendations. These are just a few examples that I was able to identify.

25. “Consistent with District requirements and applicable by law” limits parental rights (Section X) Parent rights to limit their child’s screen-based instruction are granted only “consistent with District requirements and applicable by law.” This qualification appears to allow the District to set its own floor for what opt-out rights look like, and to use legal minimums rather than best practices. It appears that parents have no right under this language to demand that their child receive fully analog instruction unless the District chooses to honor that.

What You Can Do Right Now

This is the moment to act.

Public comment periods are the single most powerful tool parents and community members have, but only when enough voices show up. Here is exactly what you can do.

1. Contact the LAUSD Board Directly

Every LAUSD board member can be reached by emailing boardmembers@lausd.net

Suggested subject line: 25 Loopholes in the Screen Time Policy. Please Address Before Voting

Key points to include in your message:

We are requesting that the 25 issues identified in your draft screen time policy are responded to and addressed. The full list can be found here: LAUSD Screen Time Policy: 25 Loopholes

2. Attend a Board Meeting and Speak

You do not need to be a parent, teacher, or district employee to speak at a public board meeting. You need two minutes and a sign-up.

→ Meeting schedule: lausd.net/boardmeetings

→ Public comment sign-up typically opens 48 hours before each meeting. In-person and remote options are usually both available.

→ Two minutes is enough. State your name, your concern, and one specific ask. Specificity beats length every time.

3. Amplify on Social Media | Tag Everyone

Tagging creates a public record that board members, journalists, and community leaders can find. Use these when sharing this article:

LAUSD accounts:

→ @LAUSDSup (Superintendent Alberto Carvalho)

→ @lausd

Education journalists and newsrooms:

→ LA Times Education — @latimesed

→ EdWeek — @educationweek

→ The 74 Million — @the74

→ Chalkbeat — @chalkbeat

→ KQED Education — @kqed

→ Local TV desks: @ABC7 @NBCLosAngeles @CBSLA

Suggested caption when sharing:

I just read the full breakdown of 25 loopholes in LAUSD’s new screen time policy. Our children deserve a policy written for them… not for those who profit from them. Read it. Share it. Tag someone who needs to see this. #LAUSD #ScreenTime #EdTech #ChildDevelopment #ProtectOurKids #CMRRL

4. Share With Your School Community

PTAs, parent groups, school Slack channels, and neighborhood networks are where real organizing happens. A message from someone your community trusts is far more powerful than a reshare from a stranger.

→ Follow Schools Beyond Screens. Their impactful work is leading this mission.

→ Bring this to your school’s PTA or School Site Council.

→ Ask your PTA president to place it on the next meeting agenda.

→ If you’re a teacher, please share with your union representative. Teachers deserve a seat at this table.

Share

5. Subscribe and Stay Involved

This is the first in a series of findings I’ll be publishing here as this policy moves through the board process. Subscribe for updates on the vote, new findings, and next steps.

Subscribe now

If you are a researcher, journalist, attorney, parent advocate, or educator who wants to get more directly involved in reform, please reach out.

Contact

The LAUSD Board should be doing this analysis themselves. They have the staff, the budget, and the mandate. The fact that a community of parents had to surface 25+ structural problems in a two-minute public comment is a reflection of how normalized the relationship between for-profit EdTech and public education has become, and how policies are designed to confuse parents while protecting the board and their relationships with the lobbyists and vendors.

That normalization ends when enough people refuse to look away.

Our children deserve a policy written for them. Not for those who profit from them.

Share

Will Maurer is Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab. He spent 20 years as an executive in the tech and media industries before dedicating his research to understanding how media and tech products shape children’s development — and how they enter our homes and schools.

The global conversation around children’s mental health rarely provides tools for one of its fastest growing contributors: a child’s first screen experiences. Instead, parents are handed a rigid “no screens before two” mandate, devoid of the digital literacy or resources needed to navigate the realities of modern parenting… and a media system intentionally stacked against them.

The data tells a clear story: infants now begin watching screens between three and five months of age. Yet, when a device enters the sacred space between caregiver and child, it does more than just distract; it heightens stress, overstimulates the senses, and displaces the biological safety of human connection.

The impact on a fragile, developing brain is so profound that nearly every global health organization has issued the same warning: abstain from screen use for the first two years. But in a world where the “digital home” is as omnipresent as the physical one, a simple “no” is no longer enough. We need a new architecture for digital wellbeing.

“No Screens Before Two”
Nearly all global health organizations stand in solidarity on this.

The reality, however, is much different. And that’s what the policies and the guidelines fail to account for.

Screens Are Entering Babies’ Lives Earlier Than Ever

We’re told: ‘no screens beforeUnder two.’ Here is the Reality:

The concern: 80% of brain development occurs in the first three years. These experiences shape the foundation for all future learning, behavior, and health.

These rigid guidelines are not only ineffective, but they are also fueling parents’ anxiety and hopelessness around this topic. Prohibition without education or safer alternatives has never proven to be a successful formula. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. “No Screens” guidelines without effective regulations have enabled harmful content and deceptive marketing to thrive by filling this void unchecked; meanwhile, they have blocked support and funding for safer public media alternatives to be created for this age group.

The First 1,000 Days: A Critical Window

Developmental science tells us that early experiences shape the foundation for all future learning, behavior, and health. Experiences that are calm, predictable, reciprocal, and relational strengthen neural pathways that support regulation, focus, and communication.

By age 5, approximately 90% of a child’s brain has developed, reaching roughly 90% of its adult size. And today, that critical period of development is increasingly being fogged and disrupted by developmentally harmful content and screen time slop that is engineered to capture attention with no regard for the lasting mark on a fragile developing brain.

What young brains absorb shapes them and their ability to learn and thrive. But the noise around this topic is confusing and often paralyzing… perhaps by design.

Experiences that are chaotic, overstimulating, unpredictable, or designed to repeatedly trigger the reward system wire the brain in a different way.

The biggest problem is not “screens” or even screen “time”.

It’s the type of digital media that infants are now routinely exposed to.

Children’s media producers are all competing to capture attention for reasons that are driven by shareholder value rather than what the science tells us a young child’s brain can actually process.

So, what are they viewing?

Most infant-targeted programs use rapid edits, flashing graphics, chaotic camera movement, and dopamine-spiking sequences that are highly engaging but neurologically overwhelming.

This is overstimulation by design. And it is not something infants and toddlers are developmentally equipped to handle.

The Hidden Pathway from Overstimulation to Mental Health challenges

What begins as a mesmerized infant in front of a screen can become:

• Shorter attention spans

• Difficulty tolerating the pace of real life

• Emotional reactivity

• Reduced frustration tolerance

• Sensory overload

• Dependency on high stimulation

• Loss of focus and retention

We see it every day in every aspect of our lives. A child who has become dependent on screen stimulation handed a device as a method of regulation. As a father who has been in this situation before, and one who has now spent years researching the impact of screens in the first 1,000 days, I now know how the content on these devices is engineered to overstimulate and create a dependency. This can happen even with content that is labeled ‘slow’ or ‘calm’ as there are many different ways to trigger the same reward system.

Parents often describe this as:

“Nothing else keeps them calm.”

“He will melt down if I don’t give him a few minutes of screen time.”

“She goes straight from zero to ten.”
“Ten minutes turns into an hour in the blink of an eye.”

“They become a different person after screen time.”

These patterns look like behavioral issues, but they’re often neurological adaptations. The roots were planted in infancy, long before the symptoms appeared. It can become a cycle difficult to break. One that impacts and can block a child’s ability to focus, learn, and develop the key social emotional skills they need to thrive.

This Is Not a Parenting Failure

Parents are exhausted. Parents are overwhelmed and they are anxious.They are raising babies in a digital world that was neither designed for nor has been tested for these fragile developing brains. And, parents are falling victim to deceptive, conflicting messaging, advertising and societal pressures.

Blaming parents and placing the full burden on them has never been the solution.

It has only served to distract from the real issue.

This Is a Systemic Failure

A failure in how children’s media is created, marketed, labeled, recommended, and regulated.

A failure in how global organizations address screen time by leaning heavily on prohibition and leaving families with no realistic relevant path forward.

A failure in an industry that labels content “educational” or “baby safe” without meeting a single developmental standard.

Parents are doing their best in a system that wasn’t built to support them.

The system itself must change.

The Solution Isn’t to Eliminate Screens, It’s to Eliminate What Makes Them Harmful

If we want to address one of the root contributors to the children’s mental health crisis, we must:

• Remove harmful production techniques from infant directed media

• Update guidelines based on current developmental science

• Support parents with realistic, evidence-based tools and resources

• Turn screen time into co-viewing opportunities to support relational health and emotional intelligence

• Create content designed to gently transition the viewer away from screens

• Build ethical public media alternatives that prioritize connection and early childhood development

This requires collaboration across research, policy, education, pediatric care, and media production.

The guideline of “no screens before 2” is meaningful, but it is failing the families that it was meant to protect.

We owe parents more than unrealistic warnings. We owe them solutions.

Waiting for the system to fix itself, however, is not the answer parents need now.

They need digital literacy skills to be able to become better gatekeepers and they need to be able to understand the design and effects of the content before their children consume it. They need tools to help them co-view and learn to provide key opportunities to engage with their children and guide them toward healthy off-screen play, literacy and discovery.

At the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab, we are working toward ensuring that every child’s digital health has the same priority, focus and attention as their physical one.

We achieve this through:

• Mapping the science behind why overstimulating media harms infants

• Developing rigorous production guidelines that mirror reality

• Supporting parents with accessible, evidence-based tools

• Advising creators and studios on developmentally aligned production techniques

• Advocating for standards that reflect the same care and intention as all other aspects of early childhood

Our goal is to create a safe digital ecosystem for every parent and child from the start.

A Call to Action

Children’s Mental Health Awareness Month is a time for honesty. And the honest truth is that we cannot address the mental health crisis in children without addressing its earliest roots. We cannot protect the adolescent without protecting the infant. We cannot reform the algorithm without first reforming the content being fed to babies before they have words to describe what they see. The window is small. The stakes are enormous. And the science is clear enough to act on; right now, with urgency and with care.

If this resonates with you — as a parent, an educator, or simply someone who cares — I’d love to hear from you. And if it’s useful, please share it with someone who needs to read it.

Share

About Will Maurer: Will Maurer is the Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL) and a leading voice in children’s media reform. A 20-year veteran of the media industry, he specializes in bridging developmental science, industry expertise, and digital literacy, providing an insider’s perspective on the children’s screen time crisis.

Watch Will’s TEDx Talk on This Topic Here

Will Maurer TEDx Talk

About CMRRL: The Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab is a nonprofit that advances digital literacy through rigorous research, evidence-based tools, and public education and advocacy for parents, educators, and practitioners navigating screen time in the earliest years. Our mission is to ensure that the digital environment surrounding our youngest children reflects the same care, intention, and safety that guides every other facet of early childhood practice.

Subscribe now

Link to Press Release: https://www.cmrrl.org/tedxpressrelease

#TEDTalk #TEDx #DigitalLiteracy #ScreenTime #DigitalParenting #Parenting #EarlyChildhood #CMRRL

“Screen Time for Children Under 2: Fixing a Broken System”

WATCH WILL'S TEDx HERE

Will Maurer is the Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab, a nonprofit that delivers research, tools and resources to support early years digital literacy and wellbeing for parents and practitioners. As a veteran media executive and industry insider, Will specializes in bridging the gap between developmental science and digital literacy for the early years.

TRANSCRIPT:

Let’s talk about one of the most polarizing and unavoidable topics in modern parenting: screen time for children under the age of 2. ^{[1, 2, 3]}

From my earliest memories, screens were always on. And the cartoons that raised me, they even inspired my career. So you could imagine my shock when I became a parent and learned that screen time has been linked to cognitive, emotional, and physical health issues. ^{[4, 5, 6]}

For more than half a century this topic has been debated from playgrounds to policy statements. ^[7]

Do this. Don’t do that. I was paralyzed by all the noise. But there was one voice that I simply couldn’t ignore. It sounded something like this: (audio of Will’s son crying)

That tiny but powerful voice inspired a years-long mission to seek answers… and uncover the truth. I’ll never forget that moment. It was 2020, the world was in lockdown, and I had just become a new father; a title that I wear more proudly than any of my professional accolades.

Prior to that, I worked with nearly every major studio, leading teams around the world to create movie magic for some of the biggest blockbusters. A career that has required overcoming constant challenges. ^{[8, 9]}

So when I heard my son’s helpless cries, and I wasn’t able to speak his language, it became the catalyst that led me down a rabbit hole of research that solidified the importance of every decision we make as parents. Some things were obvious. And others were extremely confusing; like the research and guidelines on screen time for children under the age of two.

Now remember, this was the height of the pandemic. It was just me, my wife, and our new baby. Did I mention the colic? It was constant. We were physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted… and we desperately needed a break.

And there it was. Right in front of us. A digital babysitter.

At that moment the storm clouds parted and a golden ray of light illuminated that 55-inch screen. But before I could even reach for that remote - the internal debate began: “I grew up on screens, as I’m sure most of us have, and we turned out alright… right?” But on the other hand - what if the experts are right?

So when it came time to make a decision about screen time for our 6-month old we persevered and continued to search for answers. And although most of the information seemed contradictory and confusing, there was one thing that was NOT debatable: No screen time before the age of 2. Nearly ALL global health organizations stood in solidarity on this. And the repercussions… seemed pretty serious. ^{[10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16}}

But NO screen time? This did not seem in-line with reality. And as it turns out, we came across dozens of published reports confirming that the vast majority of children under 2 are growing up on screens. The average starting age - four months. And cohort studies from across the globe showed that 3 out of 4 infants begin watching television before their first birthday, averaging nearly an hour per day by six months old. ^{[17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]}

Some are quick to point a finger and call this a parenting failure. But the more we read the more we were convinced that this was a systemic failure. Starting with the research on this topic - which some experts refer to as a hot mess. And after nearly a year of severe sleep deprivation, so were my wife and I. But we kept on searching and were surprised to find studies showing just how flawed the existing research on this topic is. ^{[29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]}

For instance, the American Psychological Association reviewed all publicly available policy statements and discovered a long list of issues that were fairly significant. They found that the majority of research had overstated the evidence for harmful effects, while completely ignoring conflicting evidence that certain types of content may actually be beneficial. ^{[36, 37, 38]}

This report was published over 6 years ago and has not done much to change the way these policy statements are drafted and communicated to the public. Because simply saying ‘screen time is the problem’ - and ‘NO screen time is the solution’ - is a statement that fails to look at parenting as a whole. Studies confirm that screens are being introduced earlier and more often - and for a number of different reasons. ^{[39, 40, 41, 42]}

Which is why it’s so important that parents have access to age-appropriate options. But even the mere suggestion of developing research-informed content for a 6-month-old is enough to draw the wrath of the gatekeepers and the ire of the experts. But why? It’s because flawed research has led to rigid policies that have discouraged support and funding for more relevant research and solutions. This has created a void that’s been filled with developmentally inappropriate content. Most research uses content that is already known to be harmful when they study this topic. ^[43]

And as for the experts - they suggest that if children under 2 engage in screen time, parents should choose quality programming like PBS Kids. But here’s the problem. PBS Kids doesn’t develop any content for children under 2. No funding. No research. Nothing that is age-appropriate. ^{[44, 45, 46]}

And then there’s the wild west of YouTube, where parents can easily find thousands of unregulated shows labeled “baby-safe” and “educational.” But does anyone even know what those terms actually mean? I didn’t. But here’s what I found: The FCC’s criteria for labeling children’s media as educational is so vague, even their own commissioners debated whether it was purposely deceptive. This lack of a clear definition only benefits the media companies. ^{[47, 48, 49]}

And nothing shocked me more than what I discovered next. It turns out, children’s media isn’t just by chance a convenient babysitter, it’s a well-oiled machine, engineered using techniques known to hijack a young child’s developing brain. But don’t take my word for it. In a NYT interview with the company behind CoComelon and dozens of other popular preschool shows, they shared insights on their production techniques, which have helped their shows reach 100’s of millions of subscribers and nearly 1 trillion views. One of the research tools they used is called “The Distractatron”. Its purpose? To make sure that a child’s attention never leaves the screen. ^{[50, 51]}

Have you ever tried to talk to a child while they’re watching one of these shows, or even worse, tried to turn it off? It’s frightening.

Just turn on any preschool show and you’ll see these same production techniques on full display. This includes:

• Rapid sequencing

• Frenetic action

• Disorienting camera movements and cuts

• Overstimulating audio and visual effects

• An explosion of colors

• Characters, language and concepts that a young child can’t comprehend

• And an endless stream of sensory overload

Have you ever wondered why nearly all children’s media contains these elements and techniques? It’s because they’re addictive. ^[52]

Research shows that when a young child is exposed to this level of stimulation, it triggers dopamine imbalances that may affect the brain in a similar manner to drug addiction. These techniques precondition the mind to expect high levels of stimulation, which keeps a young child hooked and longing for more. Because the truth is… it’s impossible for them to find this level of stimulation anywhere else. This results in symptoms of withdrawal, a decline in executive function, and may lay the foundation for other addictions later in life. ^{[53, 54, 55]}

But in order to comprehend why these techniques are so powerful, we need to understand how a young child’s brain functions and develops. 80% of brain development happens in the first three years. These experiences shape the foundation for all future learning, behavior, and health. If the neural pathways are formed by periods of excessive stimulation, they can have severe adverse effects that hinder a child throughout their lifetime. The younger the child - the more consequential the effects and outcomes. ^{[56, 57, 58, 59]}

This hit me hard. My career started in the field of children’s animation… and I was completely blindsided. I felt complicit - but I refused to be complacent. So instead of continuing to ask the experts for advice, I was now demanding answers.

I wanted to know why nearly all children’s media contains overstimulating elements and production techniques that are known to be harmful?

Why does so much flawed research neglect to account for this?

Why do the most trusted organizations that parents turn to for advice on this topic, fail to factor this into their recommendations and guidelines?

And why do the systems that were designed to guide families and protect children - enable harmful content to thrive, while blocking support for more mindful alternatives?

Brain science has shown just how damaging these elements and techniques can be, so ignoring this feels negligent, and deceitful. ^{[60, 61, 62]}

Because for children around the world - screen time has simply become unavoidable.

Relatives, siblings, caregivers - there’s a community of influence that is difficult for a parent to control. And then there’s the effects of our own screen usage. The odds are truly stacked against babies from day 1. Which is why it’s so important that parents have access to age-appropriate options.

I’m not saying this to shame, or provoke anxiety. This is a call to reimagine the system. To stop ignoring the facts. And start fixing what we know is broken. ^[63]

After years of research - my wife and I have made this our mission. We believe that in order to combat the harmful effects of screen time - we need to eliminate the harmful elements. But what we’ve come to realize is that actions speak louder than words. So here’s a short example of what we believe research-informed content for an infant could look and sound like.

THE BABBLES RESEARCH DEMO

This demo showcases a prosocial play-based activity that illustrates problem solving, creativity and critical thinking, and engages the viewer in these activities. It emphasizes social-emotional learning through facial expressions, body language and vocalizations - the natural language of infants. It incorporates:

• Turn-based play and repetition - because we know that repeated actions lead to greater retention

• Symbolic gestures and baby sign language - to break down the communication barrier

• Diverse characters and inclusive themes - reflecting the citizens of the world

• Sounds and actions that are grounded in reality

• A Watch & Play co-viewing guide - to help parents bridge the lessons from the screen to their home

• And in this entire episode there’s no camera movement or cuts.

We created this example to progress the conversation from the theoretical to the evidence-based. And what we’ve observed has been quite rewarding. By eliminating the harmful elements, and focusing on activities that a parent can replicate with their child, we are observing active participants as opposed to hijacked viewers. ^[64]

But this shouldn’t be surprising. The late great Fred Rogers had already laid the foundation for this model over 50 years ago when he developed similar principles rooted in empathy, education and respect for the developing mind. In fact, Mr Rogers felt so strongly about this that he stood before congress to fight for the future of children’s educational media.

These are the types of actions that are necessary to create real, and meaningful change. Because our youngest and most vulnerable - they’re counting on us to band together and continue this fight, until we get it right - and even more so now than ever. Because it truly takes a village - or should I say, “a Neighborhood” - to transform a broken system.

THANK YOU!

Sources:

• [1] JAMA Pediatrics—The Year in Review, 2024

• [2] JAMA Pediatrics—The Year in Review, 2025

• [3] Impact of Screen Time on Children’s Development: Cognitive, Language, Physical, and Social and Emotional Domains

• [4] Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Child Development: An Updated Review and Strategies for Management

• [5] Impact of Screen Time on Children’s Development: Cognitive, Language, Physical, and Social and Emotional Domains

• [6] Effect of Screen Time on the Development of Fine Motor, Language, and Social Skills in Children Aged 1 to 6 Years - PubMed

• [7] Annual Review of Developmental Psychology Children and Screens

• [8] William Maurer - IMDb

• [9] Will Maurer - LinkedIn

• [10] Correlates of screen time in the early years (0–5 years): A systematic review - PMC

• [11] WHO: guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children

• [12] Screen time and preschool children: Promoting health and development in a digital world | Canadian Paediatric Society

• [13] Screen use and young children | Caring for kids

• [14] Screen use by children aged under five: independent report - GOV.UK

• [15] New screen time guidance for parents of under-5s - GOV.UK

• [16] Impact of Screen Time on Development of Children

• [17] Global Prevalence of Meeting Screen Time Guidelines Among Children 5 Years and Younger: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Media and Youth | JAMA Pediatrics

• [18] Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Zero to Eight

• [19] Kids And Devices: What The Latest Research Shows

• [20] How early media exposure may affect cognitive function: A review of results from observations in humans and experiments in mice - PMC

• [21] Prevalence, trajectories, and determinants of television viewing time in an ethnically diverse sample of young children from the UK | International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

• [22] Objectively measured infant and toddler screen time: Findings from a prospective study - ScienceDirect

• [23] The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children’s Executive Function

• [24] Infant Television Watching Predicts Toddler Television Watching in a Low-Income Population - PubMed

• [25] High amounts of screen time begin as early as infancy, NIH study suggests

• [26] Average Amount of Screen Time for Children and Young Adults

• [27] Digital screen exposure in infants, children and adolescents: a systematic review of existing recommendations - PMC

• [28] Language learning in a digital world: How screen time impacts children’s language development

• [29] Reconsidering Screen Time: Research, Reason, & Real Life | Lucie’s List

• [30] How Much Does Screen Time Really Affect Child Development?

• [31] Correlates of screen time in the early years (0–5 years): A systematic review - PMC

• [32] No evidence screen time is negative for children’s cognitive development and well-being: Oxford Study

• [33] What do we really know about kids and screens?

• [34] Reconsidering Screen Time: Research, Reason, & Real Life | Lucie’s List

• [35] The Truth About Research on Screen Time - Dana Foundation

• [36] Do Policy Statements on Media Effects Faithfully Represent the Science? - Malte Elson, Christopher J. Ferguson, Mary Gregerson, Jerri Lynn Hogg, James Ivory, Dana Klisanin, Patrick M. Markey, Deborah Nichols, Shahbaz Siddiqui, June Wilson, 2019

• [37] Young children and screen-based media: The impact on cognitive and socioemotional development and the importance of parental mediation - ScienceDirect

• [38] Are Some Types of Screen Time Better Than Others? | Common Sense Media

• [39] ‘I’m not perfect’: Navigating screen time among parents of young children during COVID‐19 - PMC

• [40] High amounts of screen time begin as early as infancy, NIH study suggests

• [41] Global Prevalence of Meeting Screen Time Guidelines Among Children 5 Years and Younger

• [42] Evaluating screen exposure in very young children: insights from the Italian Surveillance System of children aged 0-2 years

• [43] Impact of Screen Time on Children’s Development: Cognitive, Language, Physical, and Social and Emotional Domains

• [44] Media and Young Minds | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics

• [45] Screen Time for Infants, AAP

• [46] What is PBS KIDS’ mission?

• [47] Federal Register :: Children’s Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative

• [48] STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, DISSENTING

• [49] Weakening TV Programming Rules, GOP-Controlled FCC Throws Kids Under the Bus | Common Dreams

• [50] Moonbug’s ‘CoComelon’ Leaves Nothing to Chance - The New York Times

• [51] How CoComelon Captures Our Children’s Attention | The New Yorker

• [52] Digital Addictions: A Family Guide to Prevention, Signs, and Treatment - Children and Screens

• [53] Excessive Sensory Stimulation during Development Alters Neural Plasticity and Vulnerability to Cocaine in Mice - PMC

• [54] The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children’s Executive Function | Pediatrics

• [55] What Screen Addictions and Drug Addictions Have in Common

• [56] Brain Architecture: An ongoing process that begins before birth.

• [57] How early media exposure may affect cognitive function: A review of results from observations in humans and experiments in mice - PMC

• [58] Impact of Screen Time on Children’s Development: Cognitive, Language, Physical, and Social and Emotional Domains

• [59] Brain Development Series, Part I - Children’s Institute

• [60] Young children and screen-based media: The impact on cognitive and socioemotional development and the importance of parental mediation - ScienceDirect

• [61] How early media exposure may affect cognitive function: A review of results from observations in humans and experiments in mice - PMC

• [62] Understanding the differential impact of children’s TV on executive functions: a narrative-processing analysis

• [63] Too much screen time harms children, experts agree. So why do parents ignore them?

• [64] Do infants understand educational television content based on scientific findings? - ScienceDirect

Each year, companies spend billions on children’s digital media, both to produce it and to put it in front of young children.

According to MediaRadar, US ad spending in children’s content alone surpassed $1.6 billion in 2022, jumping nearly 50% in a single year, with 70% flowing through digital channels. Globally, according to Market.us, the kids digital advertising market was valued at $3.4 billion in 2023 and is on track to reach $25.9 billion by 2033.

The return on that investment is staggering: according to CNBC, children’s programming has become the primary subscriber retention engine for major streaming platforms, with a single preschool series like Bluey logging more than 25 billion viewing minutes in just the first half of 2025, making it one of the most-watched streaming properties of any genre. And programs like Cocomelon have been viewed nearly a quarter-trillion times.

That’s a lot of time and influence over our youngest and most vulnerable minds during a critical period where approximately 90% of brain development happens before age 5.

Now let’s compare that to what gets invested in truly independent research to understand the impact this content has on young developing brains.

I’m not talking about money spent on research commissioned by the companies producing the content, or delivering the content.

I’m not talking about internal “formative evaluation” used to optimize engagement.

I’m talking about truly independent, peer-reviewed science that has no financial stake in the outcome, or any production, distribution or advertising influence over the process.

This gap isn’t just large… It’s completely unfathomable! In fact, funding for independent evaluation exists only in the rarest of circumstances.

This has real consequences. Companies often use an assortment of misleading labeling that is designed to quickly garner parents’ trust: “Educational”, “Research-based”, “Developmentally aligned”, “Age appropriate“, “Baby safe”.

These claims are largely unregulated and often unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, the actual science (what independent researchers have learned about attention, language acquisition, parasocial relationships, and media stimulation in early childhood), thrives in academia, but remains buried within the pages of academic journals that most parents will never read.

This ‘Digital Parent Gap’ is growing larger by the day.

How do we fix this?

Let’s look at an example of how a different industry tackles a similar issue. Corporations that have a negative impact on the health of the environment often pay “green taxes” or “environmental taxes.”

I’m no expert on the logistics of these taxes, but on the surface, this helps offset some of the potential harms that these companies have on the environment by allocating these funds toward research and programs that are designed to help when regulation alone doesn’t suffice.

But perhaps the most relevant analogy isn’t actually environmental taxes. It’s tobacco.

For decades, tobacco companies funded their own “youth smoking prevention” programs. They didn’t do this because they wanted fewer kids to smoke, but because it let them argue against taxes and regulation. A landmark 2006 federal court ruling found that those industry programs were “minimally funded” relative to what those same companies were spending on targeted marketing at the very same group. The truth was that these initiatives were never validated for effectiveness, and were actively used to fight legitimate public health legislation. Research later confirmed that some of the parent-directed industry campaigns actually INCREASED the likelihood that kids would start smoking.

Sound familiar?

The parallels to children’s media are hard to ignore.

We already see large platforms and production companies funding their own “research arms,” commissioning impact studies that conveniently validate their existing content, and pointing to those programs as evidence that additional regulation is unnecessary. Often drawing a double benefit by creating Corporate Social Responsibility programs to show that they take this seriously, but then allocating this funding to organizations and programs that are in-line with the corporation’s objectives, not ones that may research and investigate their potential harmful practices.

These programs aren’t broken. They’re working exactly as designed… just not for the benefit of parents and children.

So what does a better model look like?

Children deserve the same care and reverence that we’ve finally started imposing on other industries. The funding mechanism needs to be independent of the companies it oversees. The tobacco playbook showed us exactly what happens when it isn’t.

These are the issues that we’re investigating and developing solutions for through our work at Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL).

Donate

If you, or someone you know, is looking to tackle these systemic challenges across the children’s media landscape, please reach out and connect so that we can maximize our collective impact. Every second, every dollar, every resource is needed in order to reform the multi-billion-dollar media and tech industry that profits at the expense of our children’s health and wellbeing.

Share

About Will Maurer

Will Maurer is the Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL) and a leading voice in children’s media reform. A veteran media executive and keynote speaker, he specializes in bridging the gap between developmental science and digital literacy. Will contributes to conversations on digital wellbeing, systems change, and ethical media design to provide parents, educators, caregivers and practitioners with the digital literacy skills, resources and tools to ensure that the ‘digital home’ meets the same care, intention, and evidence-based standards as the physical one.

About Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL)

CMRRL is a nonprofit dedicated to supporting digital wellbeing through rigorous research, evidence-based standards, education and public advocacy.

Subscribe now

While I admittedly don’t know all the facts and details, the premise of this collaboration seems promising and sound. The press release, however, may not be giving us key details.

Here’s what I can see…

Moonbug is aligning with the expertise, gravitas, reputation of UCLA StoryTeller Center while receiving the “badge” of a respected University and a research group who I believe are genuinely trying to do their best for families.

UCLA gives Moonbug parent-cred at a time when children’s content creators are under fire for their overstimulating production techniques.

At the same time as being a major PR coup for Moonbug, this model has the potential to become an important step in the right direction for children’s content...

All good news, right? But then I read this:

“The research center will... review scripts and early cuts of episodes to ensure learning is clear and age-appropriate.”

Emphasis on these two terms: EARLY CUTS and AGE-APPROPRIATE.

Subscribe now

Two alarm bells for me.

As a Dad, and based on my extensive research in this field, I have some questions and concerns. We know that so many children’s programs rely on overstimulating production techniques and other developmentally-inappropriate “ingredients” as a method to capture attention and draw kids into an endless viewing loop.

If Moonbug restrains UCLA’s ability to review content to simply “scripts and an early cut”, which is typically prior to the stage of the production where overstimulating elements and techniques are incorporated, it limits UCLA from advising on arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS of the programming for this intended audience, which can directly impact cognitive overload and the long-term wellbeing of the child who is viewing the content.

My next concern… What does the term“age-appropriate” really mean? When it comes to Children’s media, nearly all global health organizations recommend “no screen time before the age of 2”. Yet, many of Moonbug’s YouTube channels use the term “for babies” in the title of their most popular shows.

Parents Deserve Details Beyond the Carefully Crafted Headlines

We know what the Brain science tells us - that young children are not able to process or comprehend any “educational” elements buried beneath layers of rapid cuts, frenetic action, disorienting audio-visual effects, loud sound effects and fast camera movements, all engineered by producers who understand how to capture attention and extend watch time. In fact, these techniques used to pull children into repetitive viewing are the same elements that their brains cannot process, sift, or make sense of causing distraction, an inability to focus and dysregulation.

Parents typically have no way of knowing or recognizing how to distinguish content that is designed to capture a child’s attention, which many parents confuse with ‘being engaged’. As a new father and former animation exec, neither did I. It wasn’t until I undertook years of focused and extensive research on this topic that I began to understand the how and the why children’s media is designed.

For parents, the news of a collaboration between a well known children’s media producer and a respected research institution is welcome. It’s a ‘green-light’ for parents that when they choose this content for screen time (no shame or judgement - parents already endure enough of that) they ‘should’ now have a trusted program that applies and incorporates “child development research”. Parents will feel validated in their choice, thinking, my child will be better off because of this. Most parents will tell themselves, “How can I not choose research-backed educational programming that is co-constructed and validated?” And the proof is right in front of me... my child seemingly can’t get enough of this content. Red Flag!

I advise parents: “when ‘engaged’ turns to ‘enraged’ once the screens are shut off, the problem lies with the content, not the screen or device.”

Developmentally appropriate content designed for co-viewing does not typically lead to this same outcome.

So, I have a few simple requests: if Moonbug truly wants to design experiences that are in the best interest of children’s well-being, then:

1. This partnership must not have limitations in terms of restricted access to the production process. Researchers need to be able to review the full program and provide actionable guidance based on clear rules that are established from the start.

2. The definition of “age appropriate” content needs to be clearly defined by researchers and producers alike, as should the intended age group. Saying that the content is made for ‘preschool’, ‘0-5’, ‘toddlers’ or other terms that have large gaps between what is appropriate within that age range, matters greatly.

3. The content should also meet 3rd party validation from an organization like the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab to verify any “educational” or “age appropriate” claims that are being made. It is important that the organization understands early childhood development as well as the effects of media on a child’s development to ensure the best interest of the child is at the center of the review.

Parents are eager for safer options - and this is top of mind for media marketing firms. I’m hopeful that UCLA and Moonbug will heed this advice and place children’s wellbeing at the heart of the programming (from development through distribution) so that this blossoms into a blueprint for the change that parents have been demanding - instead of another strategic marketing headline that lures weary parents who are looking for safer options into an endless screen time loop.

Share

At the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL), our work focuses on ages 0–3 because this window shapes the architecture of the developing brain and cascades into language, emotional regulation, learning, and long-term health.

Recently, I submitted a series of recommendations to the UK Department for Education. While the details were technical, the core message applies globally.

The Real Risk Is Displacement, Not Devices

For infants and toddlers, developmental outcomes are shaped less by the presence of screens and more by what is consumed on them and what they replace.

Harm emerges when screen use displaces responsive caregiving, interrupts serve-and-return interaction, increases sensory load, or disrupts sleep and self-regulation. Overstimulating pacing, abrupt scene changes, emotionally ambiguous cues, and commercially driven attention tactics intensify these effects.

By contrast, positive outcomes are observed when media is used as a shared tool. When a responsive adult scaffolds attention, narrates the experience, and responds to the child’s cues, the interaction strengthens what we define as the learning bond.

Time Limits Alone Miss the Point

Public guidance often reduces the issue to minutes per day. The evidence tells a different story.

In the first two years of life, developmental impact varies more by content design, context of use, and the child’s regulatory state than by duration alone. A few minutes of poorly designed content can dysregulate an infant. A short, intentional, adult-supported interaction can be neutral or supportive.

The more useful policy question is not “How long?”
It is “What is this replacing, how was it designed, and how is it being used?”

Not All Screens Behave the Same

Mobile devices and tablets introduce an “always accessible” dynamic that encourages pacification and solitary use. Background television reduces caregiver interaction and is associated with poorer language outcomes. Many products labeled “interactive” remain cognitively overstimulating for under-twos without caregiver support.

Design matters. Context matters. Adult presence alone is insufficient.

Co-Viewing Is a Skill, Not a Label

The term co-viewing is widely used and rarely defined. Evidence shows that benefits emerge only when adults actively guide the experience: narrating, pausing, responding, and pacing with the child.

This is why parent education is as critical as content design. Without guidance, even well-intended media can fail to support development.

The Hidden Driver: Adult Screen Habits

One of the most consistent findings across studies and observations is this: caregiver device use during caregiving reduces verbal engagement, delays responses, and increases infant distress.

In many cases, developmental risk stems less from what the child watches and more from what the adult misses. Digital wellbeing for infants begins with adult awareness.

Why Parents Feel Set Up to Fail

Parents today navigate a landscape of prohibitive guidelines, vague quality labels, and a lack of truly developmentally appropriate options. The result is confusion, guilt, and resignation.

When guidance feels unrealistic and alternatives are unavailable, families default to convenience and justification. This is not a parenting failure. It is a systemic failure.

When parents are given clear, development-based guidance and free access to appropriate content and co-viewing resources, healthier habits follow.

What Real Solutions Look Like

The evidence supports interventions that:

• Center co-regulation and relationships

• Translate neuroscience into practical, usable guidance

• Support parents without shame or unrealistic expectations

• Incentivize the creation and distribution of developmentally appropriate programming

This is the foundation of CMRRL’s work - from professional development and production guidelines to caregiver education tools and the Early Years Media initiative, which demonstrates how research-aligned design can reduce harm while strengthening family connection.

What Families Are Actually Asking For

Parents want clarity, not prohibition.

They want to understand why certain uses matter and how to make better choices within the realities of modern life. They want alternatives they can trust. They want guidance grounded in development, not marketing language.

Most of all, they want a system that supports them instead of judging them.

A Turning Point

Governments across the globe are finally beginning to ask better questions.

If we shift the conversation from prohibition to design, from minutes to relationships, and from blame to support, we can build a digital ecosystem that strengthens families instead of fragmenting them.

For children under three, the goal is not to eliminate technology.
It is to ensure that nothing replaces the human connection or negatively impacts healthy development.

That is the standard we should be designing policy, media, and systems around.

Share

Subscribe now

That advice lacks important context. It’s also disconnected from reality and fails to acknowledge recent advancements and resources on this topic.

Screens are now embedded in modern life from the earliest months. Parents use them for many reasons: exhaustion, isolation, mental health, childcare gaps, medical challenges, and, increasingly, necessity. Telling families to practice prohibition without offering viable alternatives doesn’t reduce harm. It shifts responsibility onto parents while leaving the system itself untouched.

And that system is working exactly as designed.

The children’s media industry, particularly content targeted at infants and toddlers, has spent decades optimizing for one outcome: capturing attention.

• Attention drives advertising.

• Attention drives subscriptions.

• Attention drives product sales.

• Attention = $$$

And the earlier that attention is captured, the longer the lifetime value of the consumer, not to mention an increasing downstream public health crisis.

To capture attention, producers of children’s programming rely on overstimulating design techniques: rapid pacing, constant novelty, exaggerated sound design, visual effects, competing points of interest, and attention-hijacking cues.

These choices are not accidental. They are production decisions made to maximize engagement, not to support early development. And these production techniques are being incorporated into children’s media at a dizzying rate as each program tries to outdo the other in an effort to capture our children’s attention. Even content labeled “high-quality”, “baby safe” or “educational” rely on these same design tactics.

Further complicating this issue, trusted organizations often partner with these studios and brands, which normalizes these harmful practices instead of confronting the structural incentives at play. Parents are left navigating conflicting guidance, unclear standards, and endless options that claim to be developmentally appropriate without ever being required to prove it.

The result is predictable.

Infants and toddlers are exposed to media that can interfere with regulation, attention, and early learning. Normal developmental behaviors are misinterpreted, and often improperly diagnosed and medicated. Parents experience anxiety, shame, and confusion. And the industry continues to grow - exponentially - while accountability remains diffuse.

I know this system from the inside-out. I spent over two decades working in the industry. And when I became a parent, screen time entered our home earlier than I ever expected. For us, it was colic and a pandemic.

Like many parents, I echoed the same slogan that I have heard over and over again: “I grew up on screens and I turned out fine.”

That belief didn’t come from nowhere. It was shaped by a system designed to normalize early exposure while minimizing scrutiny. Not to mention, children’s media is designed a lot differently than it was even a decade ago.

Once I began examining how children’s media is developed, produced, marketed, and monetized, specifically for the earliest years, I couldn’t unsee the pattern. I was convinced: research alone doesn’t change systems. Exposure alone doesn’t either.

Systems change when behavior changes.
And behavior changes when incentives change.

That understanding led to the creation of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL).

Our work begins with research; deep, cross-disciplinary analysis of child development, media design, and industry practices. But it doesn’t end there. Because identifying harm without offering alternatives simply leaves parents stuck between guilt and necessity.

That’s why we’re developing clear, science-based guidelines for what developmentally appropriate media for infants and toddlers should actually look like. Not aspirational language or a happy-medium. Not marketing claims or unrealistic guidelines that are placed solely on parents. We are creating measurable standards that parents, educators, and producers can understand and apply.

And it’s why we felt the necessity to create Early Years Media.

Early Years Media recognizes and agrees that children learn best from caregivers and the environment around them. But we are also aware of the realities of modern parenting. So instead of shaming parents we completely redesigned what screen-based content for the early years can be when children’s development, not engagement metrics, is the only priority. Our nonprofit public interest channel adheres to strict guidelines put in place to eliminate overstimulating production techniques. Instead, we mirror real-world experiences and pacing that is intentionally designed for the way infants and toddlers process information.

Most importantly, our goal is to give parents something they have never been offered before: an ethical, accessible developmentally aligned content + platform alternative.

When parents can see and feel the difference, they choose differently.
When choices change, markets shift.
And when markets shift, systems are forced to adapt.

What we are witnessing now is an inflection point.

Some of the most trusted organizations in this space are increasingly entangled with the very practices that contribute to harm.

• Fundraising focuses more on influential partnership alignment over measurable impact.

• Prohibition has blocked support and funding for innovation and reform.

• And parents are still being asked to carry the burden alone.

That approach is no longer acceptable.

We need standards.
We need accountability.
And we need solutions that align early media with what we know about early development.

The future of children’s media will not be changed by another guideline telling parents what not to do. It will be changed by giving families, and the system itself, something better to choose.

Please email willmaurer@cmrrl.org for more information on how your support can make an impact for our youngest and most vulnerable.

Share

• Parents are told to avoid screens.

• Reality tells them screens are everywhere and prohibition is becoming increasingly impossible.

• And the systems producing children’s media continue largely unchanged, and without any consequences.

This critical gap between guidance and lived experience is where the real problem lies.

At the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL), we believe the question isn’t whether screens exist in the lives of young children.

The question is: what is the content displayed on those screens designed to do.

The Missing Layer in the Screen Time Debate

Most screen time guidance focuses on a combination of quantity and quality: minutes per day, age cutoffs, blanket recommendations.

What’s missing is a serious, evidence-based examination of quality, intent and delivery.

Today’s media is often engineered using the same techniques that drive adult engagement:

• Rapid scene changes and production techniques

• Artificial effects

• Bright, high-contrast stimulation

• Repetitive loops, autoplay, and long compilations that discourage disengagement

These techniques are highly effective at holding attention, but they are poorly aligned with how young children actually develop.

And this is not a new insight.

Fred Rogers Saw This Coming Over 50 Years Ago

Long before algorithms and autoplay, Fred Rogers warned against media that rushed children, overstimulated them, or replaced human connection.

His approach was radically different:

• Slow pacing

• Emotional clarity

• Direct address that invited reflection, not reaction

• Content designed to support the caregiver-child relationship, not replace it

He understood something we’re only now quantifying with neuroscience: how media feels matters as much as what it shows.

CMRRL’s work stands on that foundation, updating it for a digital, global, always-on world.

Our Theory of Change

Move the screen time conversation from restriction to responsibility.

Our global initiative is built around four core pillars:

1. Redefining Harm and Benefit in Early Media

We identify specific “harmful ingredients” in children’s media production. These include design choices that elevate stress, fragment attention, or displace social interaction.

These are not abstract concerns; they are observable, teachable, and avoidable.

2. Establishing Evidence-Based Design Principles

Drawing from developmental science, caregiver research, and real-world observation, we outline what supportive media for ages 0–2 actually looks like:

• Calm pacing and little to no production techniques (scene changes, camera movements, competing points of interest)

• Predictable reality-based structure

• Real-world sounds, actions and activities

• Space for co-viewing and conversation, and guidance to help caregivers turn screen time into shared learning time

3. Empowering Adults to Spot the Difference

Parents, educators, health workers, and policymakers need practical tools to identify these often unknown issues. We focus on media literacy for the early years: helping adults recognize design patterns that either support or undermine healthy development.

4. Changing the System, Not Just the Advice

The goal is not to create “better choices” inside a broken ecosystem. It’s to influence how content is funded, produced, distributed, consumed, and evaluated - globally.

What Success Looks Like

• Parents feel informed rather than shamed

• Professionals move beyond blanket prohibitions to identifiable guidance

• Content creators, financiers and distributors adopt developmentally aligned standards

• Policymakers gain frameworks that reflect modern realities

Most importantly, young children experience media that respects their pace, their emotions, and their need for human connection.

A Global Invitation

This initiative is intentionally designed to work across cultures, income levels, and delivery platforms. The developmental needs of a two-year-old do not change at a border.

What changes is whether the systems around them are built with care.

Fred Rogers reminded us that “what we see and hear on the screen is part of who we become.”

It’s time we treated early media design with the seriousness that truth demands. Because it truly takes a village, or more appropriately ‘a neighborhood’, to transform a broken system.

For most people, the crisis looks like an anxious 5-year-old, an overwhelmed teenager, or a school struggling to meet rising behavioral needs. But the science points to the brain shaping experiences that take place in the early years: the foundations for attention, emotional regulation, frustration tolerance, and social connection are laid long before a child enters preschool.

They’re built in the first 1,000 days.

And today, that foundational period is increasingly shaped by digital media designed to capture attention at all costs.

This is not a small footnote in child development. It’s one of the root causes.

The noise around this topic is confusing and paralyzing… but perhaps that’s by design.

The First 1,000 Days: A Critical Window

Developmental science tells us that early experience wires the brain. Experiences that are calm, predictable, reciprocal, and relational strengthen neural pathways that support regulation, focus, and communication.

Experiences that are chaotic, overstimulating, unpredictable, or designed to hijack the reward system wire the brain a different way.

The biggest problem is not “screens” or even screen “time”.
It’s the type of digital environment that infants are now routinely exposed to.

And that environment is changing rapidly, and for reasons that are not in the best interest of the child.

The Data: Screens Are Entering Babies’ Lives Earlier Than Ever

Across studies, infants begin consuming digital media between 3 and 5 months old. Many watch daily. Platforms like YouTube now command massive infant audiences and watch times, despite not being designed for infants at all.

But it’s not just when babies start viewing.
It’s what they’re viewing.

Most infant-targeted programs use rapid edits, flashing graphics, chaotic camera movement, and dopamine-spiking sequences that are highly engaging but neurologically overwhelming.

This is overstimulation by design. And it is not something babies are developmentally equipped to handle.

The Hidden Pathway from Overstimulation to Later Mental Health Struggles

What begins as a mesmerized infant in front of a screen can become, years later:

• shorter attention spans

• difficulty tolerating boredom

• emotional reactivity

• reduced frustration tolerance

• sensory overload

• dependency on high stimulation to regulate

Parents often describe this as:

“Nothing else keeps them calm.”
“He can’t sit still.”
“She goes straight from zero to ten.”
“They become a different person after screen time.”

These patterns look like behavioral issues, but they’re often neurological adaptations. The roots were planted in infancy, long before the symptoms appeared.

This Is Not a Parenting Failure

Parents are exhausted. Parents are outnumbered. Parents are raising infants in a digital ecosystem never tested for developing brains. Parents are falling victim to deceptive advertising and societal pressures.

Blaming parents has never been the solution.
It has only served to distract from the real issue:

This is a systemic failure.

A failure in how children’s media is created, marketed, labeled, recommended, and regulated.

A failure in how global organizations address screen time by leaning heavily on prohibition and leaving families with no realistic relevant path forward.

A failure in an industry that labels content “educational” or “baby safe” without meeting a single developmental standard.

Parents are doing their best in a system that wasn’t built to support them.
The system itself must change.

The Solution Isn’t to Eliminate Screens, It’s to Eliminate What Makes Them Harmful

If we want to address one of the root contributors to the children’s mental health crisis, we must:

• remove harmful production techniques from infant media

• update guidelines based on current developmental science

• support parents with realistic, evidence-based tools

• build ethical alternatives that prioritize connection over stimulation

This requires collaboration across research, policy, education, pediatric care, and media production.

This Is the Work We’re Leading at CMRRL

At the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab, we are:

• mapping the science behind why overstimulating media harms infants

• developing rigorous production guidelines

• supporting parents with accessible, evidence-based tools

• advising creators and studios on mindful alternatives

• advocating for standards that reflect the reality of modern parenting

The guideline of “no screens before 2” is meaningful, but it does not solve the fact that millions of infants are consuming digital media.

We owe parents more than unrealistic warnings. We owe them solutions.

A Call to Collaborate: It Takes a Neighborhood to Fix a Broken System

If you’re a researcher, university, foundation, policymaker, pediatric leader, or creator who wants to address this crisis at its source, we would welcome the opportunity to collaborate.

We need a global movement grounded in science, ethics, and the lived realities of families today. Please contact us through www.cmrrl.org and send us an inquiry to join our advisory board.

Join the Movement

Children’s media doesn’t need to be this way. Reform is possible, but it starts with awareness and collective action.

Subscribe to stay informed about the latest research, insights, and reforms.

Subscribe now

Share this article with parents, educators, and anyone else who can benefit from this information.

Share

Support the work of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab as we continue to challenge the system and design better guidelines and solutions for the next generation.

Donate

But the data is impossible to ignore.

Babies now begin consuming digital media at an average age of four months, racking up nearly an hour per day by six months old. And while the world continues to argue about “screen time,” the real danger isn’t the screen at all - it’s the ingredients inside the media.

Screens aren’t addictive.
Overstimulating content is.

Once you understand what children’s media is actually made of, it becomes painfully clear why so many parents feel overwhelmed, why their children crave constant stimulation, and why emotional regulation challenges are showing up earlier and more often.

Many are quick to point a finger and call this a parenting failure.
But the data tells us more than just the numbers. It reveals a system design failure that continues to shape our future generations.

The Hidden Ingredients of “Junk Food Media”

Not all food is created equal. Some foods nourish. Others contain ingredients that trigger harmful chemical reactions in the body and the brain; the cumulative effects of which may not be realized until many years later.

Children’s media is no different. It’s the ingredients inside - and how young children consume it - that make all the difference.

These are the most common “unnatural additives” found in media consumed by young children:

• Rapid scene changes

• Constant camera movement, zooms, and spins

• Chaotic layered sound and visual effects and frenetic action

• Flashing high-contrast imagery

• No pauses for processing or turn-taking

• Algorithm-optimized pacing and auto-play features that are designed to maximize watch time

These ingredients, and many others, are intentionally baked into the content to spike dopamine, exploit still-developing reward circuits, and hold attention through sensory overload.

A young child’s brain simply isn’t built for that level of intensity. The younger the child, the more severe and consequential the effects and outcomes.

This is why so many parents report:

“My baby can’t focus on anything else.”
“My toddler’s meltdowns are getting worse.”
“Nothing calms them except the screen.”
“They seems like a totally different child after watching.”

These are the neurological adaptations to overstimulation.

Parents Are Doing Their Best. But the System Is Not Built to Help Them

Parents are told “screen time is bad.” They’re told to practice prohibition. “No screens until they’re 2”.

But they’re rarely told why.
Or what, specifically, makes it harmful.
Or how to make better choices if they decide to allow it.

In the absence of real guidance, parents do what any reasonable person would do: They look for labels.

• “Baby Safe.”

• “Educational.”

• “Developmentally Friendly.”

• “Developed by experts from [insert trusted brand, university or organization].”

But here’s the truth: These labels typically have no scientific standard behind them.
None.

Anyone can put them on a product.
And many do - because they sell.

Most children’s media, even from trusted global brands, still use the same overstimulating production techniques. This is either due to a lack of knowledge… or a necessity to compete for attention and engagement.

Engagement = watch time
Watch time = revenue
Revenue = more of the same

Parents think they’re choosing something healthy.
But the “healthy media aisle” is an illusion.

Why This Matters: A Baby’s First Addiction

In nutrition, we talk about “sugar addiction” and “junk food conditioning.”
Children become hooked on the ingredients, not the packaging.

The same is true here.

When a child is repeatedly exposed to overstimulating, dopamine-spiking content, the brain begins to expect stimulation at that level. Everyday experiences such as play, books, nature, human interaction – they all feel underwhelming by comparison.

This is how dependency develops and becomes a mental health issue, a developmental health issue, and a public health issue. . And the younger the brain, the deeper the roots.

This Is Why I Created the Children’s Media Research & Reform Lab (CMRRL)

Not to shame parents.
Not to guilt caregivers.
But to reform a system that was never designed for children under 2 in the first place.

At CMRRL, our mission is simple:

1. Identify the harmful “ingredients.”

Parents should know exactly what to watch for. Know what’s in the package – not just what the label says.

2. Develop science-based production guidelines.

So ethical creators can make truly age-appropriate content - not guess.

3. Advance research that global guidelines desperately lack.

Current “no screen before age 2” recommendations are valid, but incomplete.
They were created without the realities of modern parenting in mind, and most research uses content that is already known to be developmentally inappropriate for a child under 2.

4. Build mindful media alternatives that center human connection.

When screens are used, they should support learning, development and human connection.

5. Advocate for systemic reform.

It’s extremely difficult for parents to make informed decisions if the system remains deceptive by design.

Because while children thrive most through real human connection, I also understand the truth that too many experts ignore: Screens are a part of modern parenting. The question is not whether infants will use screens - it’s what those screens are made of.

A Call for Collaboration

If you are a researcher, university, pediatric organization, foundation, policymaker, or media professional working to address this issue upstream, I’d welcome the opportunity to collaborate.

We will not solve this crisis by blaming parents.
We will solve it by reforming the systems that failed them.

We need science.
We need standards.
We need honest labeling.
We need healthy alternatives.
We need solutions that meet families where they are.

If you’re ready to be part of that work, please reach out.

And if you believe in this mission, please consider supporting CMRRL or sharing this article.

The first addiction we must protect children from is the one that begins before they can speak.

Join the Movement

Children’s media doesn’t need to be this way. Reform is possible, but it starts with awareness and collective action.

Subscribe to stay informed about the latest research, insights, and reforms.

Subscribe now

Share this article with parents, educators, and creators who care about children’s wellbeing.

Share

Support the work of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab as we continue to reform this broken system and design better guidelines and evidence-based solutions for the next generation.

Donate

Searching for Truth

After reading dozens of research articles and every policy statement, global health guideline, and expert advice column in-between, there was one message that remained consistent:

“NO SCREEN TIME BEFORE THE AGE OF 2”

Nearly ALL global health organizations stood in solidarity on this. And the repercussions sounded serious.

But NO screen time??? This did not seem in-line with reality. Especially when most of the information and recommendations seemed contradictory and confusing.

So, my wife and I continued to search for answers, and the data we found was alarming:

• Studies consistently showed that the vast majority of children under two are growing up on screens at a very young age.

• The average starting age: 4-months.

• By 6-months old, most infants are watching nearly an hour per day.

And study after study confirmed that the guidelines, although well-meaning, were not doing what they were intended to do. In fact, upon further research, we discovered that they were actually doing more harm than help.

And through it all, parents bore the brunt of the blame, shame and anxiety.
But as we continued to consume more research on this topic, one thing became painfully clear: This wasn’t a parenting failure… It was a systemic failure.

From Critique to Research

I spent the next few years diving into early childhood development, brain science, infant attention and media studies… and everything in-between. There was plenty of research confirming what I’d already sensed: babies and toddlers learn best from human connection and interaction. But I also found that the very design of most children’s shows worked in opposition to connection and interaction and was instead designed to capture attention - the ultimate babysitter - but at what cost?

I noticed that nearly all media designed for young children looked and sounded the same: bright bold colors, disorienting camera movements and cuts, frenetic action, overstimulating audio and visual effects, endless novelty, characters, language and concepts that a young child can’t comprehend, and an endless stream of sensory overload. As an industry professional I recognized the pattern of these production techniques. But as a Father I became curious why these techniques were prevalent across the entire children’s media landscape.

The Fork in the Road

The more I pulled back the curtain, the more I realized how deeply entrenched these production practices were; from funding structures and advertising models to the very way success was measured. The problem wasn’t just what children were watching. It was how and why that content was being made.

But even the mere suggestion of developing research-informed content for a 6-month-old is enough to draw the wrath of the gatekeepers and the ire of the experts.

I’ll never forget the first time I spoke with a researcher in the field of children’s media and told them I had an evidence-informed plan to design more mindful programming for children under two. I was immediately shamed and dismissed. It hurt, but I persevered. Because as a parent, I was living the reality every day. And there were no relevant alternatives.

Over time, I came to understand why the resistance from researchers in this field was so strong. Challenging established research meant confronting the possibility that earlier findings might be incomplete - even flawed - and that acknowledging this could threaten both credibility and future funding. That realization changed everything. I began to realize that the system wasn’t designed to evolve. It was designed to protect itself.

So I faced a choice: I could buckle under the weight of a system that seemed impossible to reform and return to business as usual - leading creative teams to produce the same kind of media I now knew could be harmful. Or I could risk everything to build something new.

Something that might challenge the entire system.
Something that could reimagine how we design, produce, and understand media for our youngest minds.

That decision became the beginning of a movement - and the next chapter of this story.

Coming Next

Part 3: “Building a Movement: The Birth of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab and The Babbles”

How one father’s search for answers grew into a global effort to reform children’s media from the inside out.

Join the Movement

Children’s media doesn’t need to be this way. Reform is possible, but it starts with awareness and collective action.

Subscribe to stay informed about the latest research, insights, and reforms.

Subscribe now

Share this article with parents, educators, and creators who care about children’s wellbeing.

Share

Support the work of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab as we continue to reform this broken system and design better guidelines and evidence-based solutions for the next generation.

Donate

I never imagined I would become a leading voice at the forefront of children’s media reform.

That I’d share my research and solutions on the TEDx stage, and at events across the world.

That I’d work with educators and experts to create solutions to this global issue that has been debated for more than half-a-century.

Or that I’d go up against powerful special interest groups - some of whom you might be shocked to learn have worked to silence this message.

From Movie Magic to Moral Reckoning

For over 20 years, I worked with nearly every major studio, leading teams around the world to create movie magic for blockbusters like Pokémon, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, X-Men, Astro Boy, and other global franchises. I worked with industry icons the likes of Stan Lee, James Cameron, The Rock, and many others. I enjoyed a successful career that spanned the U.S., China, India, and Hong Kong, and was fueled by passion, innovation, and constant creative problem solving.

So how did I end up becoming known as the Father of Children’s Media Reform?

Well, like any great Hollywood story, there was a catalyst… a fork in the road… and a little bit of magic.

The Moment Everything Changed

From my earliest memories, screens were always on. The cartoons that raised me didn’t just entertain me… they also inspired my career.

So, you can imagine my shock when I became a father and discovered that screen time was linked to cognitive, emotional, and physical health issues in infants and toddlers.

For more than half a century, “screen time for children under 2” has been one of the most polarizing and unavoidable topics in modern parenting; debated across research papers, parenting blogs, playgrounds, and policy statements.

“Do this.”
“Don’t do that.”
As a parent, these debates filled me with fear and anxiety but did not offer any solutions that met the reality of my situation. With no relevant alternatives, I became paralyzed by all the noise.

But there was one voice I couldn’t ignore - my son’s.

The Catalyst

It was 2020. The world was in lockdown. My wife and I had just become new parents, and our baby had colic. Constant, inconsolable colic. We were physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted, and we desperately needed a break.

And there it was, sitting right in front of us… a digital babysitter.
For one brief moment, the storm clouds parted, and a golden beam of light illuminated that 55-inch screen.

But before I could even reach for the remote, the internal debate began:
“I grew up on screens, and I turned out fine… right?”
Then another thought followed: But what if the experts are right?

So, I put the remote down and did what so many other parents have done - I began to dig deeper.

That decision became the beginning of a movement… and the next chapter of this story.

Read Part 2:

Searching for the Truth

Join the Movement

Children’s media doesn’t need to be this way. Reform is possible, but it starts with awareness and collective action. Subscribe to stay informed about the latest research, insights, and reforms.

Subscribe now

Share this article with parents, educators, and anyone else who can benefit from this information.

Share

Support the work of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab as we continue to challenge the system and design better guidelines and solutions for the next generation.

Donate

This isn’t a language that can be translated through an app or decoded through a chart (though many have tried). It’s a language that’s often met with mystery, guesswork and frustration. The reason that learning the language of babies is often perceived as impossible is because it’s multi-modal, which is fundamentally different than almost every other language.

But here’s the secret: although babies share a universal set of cues, every baby’s communication is unique. It’s a rich and complex system that uses multiple channels simultaneously. Their rhythm, tone, and gestures form a personal dialect that only you can learn through observation and connection.

An Unexpected Experiment

My observations and learning of this language didn’t stem from interactions with my own child or the scholars in this field. This complex communication system started to come into focus when I was studying the effects of screen time for children under 2, working to design mindful media alternatives that mirror real life experiences.

Having studied hours of video and audio footage of my son from birth through age 2, I began to recognize patterns and behaviors that he exhibited before, during and after different interactions. What’s even more remarkable is that many years later (he’s now 5… going on 50), I still recognize many of those old communication patterns in his current communication systems – almost exactly the same in some cases.

Understanding this language of babies is foundational to creating digital media for young children that truly supports learning, relationships and development.

The Multi-Modal Language of Babies

Baby language goes far beyond sound. A baby’s communication is a full-body experience. The way they kick their legs, arch their back, or look away when overstimulated are all meaningful messages. The challenge isn’t decoding them; it’s learning to listen, observe and recognize.

Meaning emerges from the overlap of different channels, or modes - what scientists call multimodal communication. When we learn to see these movements and sounds as parts of one unified language, we start to understand how deeply babies are trying to connect.

Vocalizations

The vocalizations we hear are the most obvious channel, but their nuances are key.

• Cries: The pitch, intensity, and rhythm of a cry can signal different needs. A sharp, sudden, high-pitched cry might signal pain, while a rhythmic, lower-pitched cry that starts and stops could be hunger. A whiny, fussy cry often indicates discomfort or fatigue.

• Coos and Gurgles: These happy, open-vowel sounds (”ahhh,” “oooo”) are early signs of contentment and social engagement. They are often accompanied by relaxed body language and eye contact.

• Babbles: As babies get older, they begin to babble (”ba-ba-ba,” “da-da”). This is vocal practice, but it’s also interactive. They watch how you respond, learning the conversational pattern of “serve and return.”

Gestures and Body Language

Babies use their entire body to “speak.” Often, their body language provides the most crucial context for their vocalizations.

• Fists: Tightly clenched fists often signal stress or hunger. As the baby is fed and becomes content, you’ll often see their hands relax and open.

• Back Arching: A baby might arch their back to signal discomfort, reflux, or to avoid something (like a spoonful of food they don’t want).

• Leg Kicking: Frantic, cycling kicks can indicate excitement or, conversely, discomfort and gas. Rhythmic, smooth kicking often signals happiness and playfulness.

• Head Turning: A baby will actively turn their head away to signal they are full, tired, or simply overstimulated and need a break from interaction. This is typically their way of saying “no, thank you.”

• Reaching: The classic open-handed reach is one of the clearest early gestures, directly signaling a desire to be picked up or to get a specific object.

Facial Expressions

A baby’s face is an open book. They use the same basic facial expressions for emotions that adults do, which are understood universally.

• A furrowed brow and downturned mouth signal distress or discomfort.

• Wide, bright eyes and a relaxed mouth show interest and engagement.

• A “scrunched” nose and squinted eyes can be a sign of disgust or dislike for a certain taste or smell.

• An open-mouthed grin is an unmistakable sign of joy.

When we begin to see these movements and sounds as parts of one unified language, we start to understand how deeply babies are trying to communicate, and in turn we begin to learn how to understand their language.

How to Learn Your Baby’s Language: The Art of “Serve and Return”

You don’t need a special app or a course to become fluent. The key is developing attunement through mindful observation and interaction. Before babies learn to speak, they teach us how to listen.

You can begin practicing by:

• Pausing before responding to a cry to see if the baby is shifting, searching, or self-soothing.

• Watching how their face changes when they hear a new sound.

• Mirroring their vocalizations slowly and softly, allowing space for their response.

These micro-moments shape a baby’s sense of being seen and understood. When an adult leans in, mirrors a baby’s facial expression, or repeats their sound, something powerful happens: neurons fire, connections strengthen, and trust builds.

This responsive back-and-forth is what researchers at Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child call “serve and return.” Studies show these interactions literally shape the architecture of the developing brain, strengthening neural pathways for communication, emotional regulation, and trust. When parents learn to notice them, communication becomes mutual. When their attempts to communicate go ignored, it creates a stressor that can lead to other issues later in life.

Here is how to Serve and Return:

1. Observe the Serve: Pay close attention to all the modes your baby is using. Don’t just hear the cry; see the clenched fists, the furrowed brow, and the fact that they’re turning away from a noisy toy. You’re looking at the whole communication package.

2. Narrate and Guess: Talk to your baby about what you see. This verbalizes their feelings and lets them know you’re trying to understand. For example: “I hear that loud cry and see you arching your back. Is your tummy is hurting?”

3. Provide a Return: Respond based on your observation. In the example above, you might try burping them or rubbing their tummy. If the baby calms, you’ve successfully interpreted their language! If they don’t, you simply observe the new set of cues and try again.

You won’t always get it right, and that’s okay. What matters is that your baby sees you trying. Every attempt to understand teaches them that their voice matters and that communication is a two-way street that builds a foundation of safety and trust.

Using Media to Create Attunement

Learning your baby’s first language is the foundation. The more you observe and respond, the more fluent you become. But in our modern world, where can parents find support in this journey that meets them where they are?

I believe mindfully designed children’s media can be a valuable resource for parents. A powerful tool to help them become more attuned, responsive, and confident in their ability to understand their child’s needs. Not to mention, a better alternative to the harmful programming that currently consumes the children’s media landscape.

In my next post, I’ll dive deeper into what this new kind of media looks like and how it can support the mindful, responsive connection every parent strives for. I’ll also share valuable guidelines created by the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab in relation to media designed for young children.

If you find value in this content, please consider sharing and supporting our work at the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab.

[DONATE]

Recommended Reading & Resources

• TED Talk: Deb Roy: The birth of a word

• Parent Coaching and Language Development: A 2020 study showing how responsive caregiver coaching boosts conversational turns.

• The Power of Live Interaction for Infants: Research from Dr. Patricia K. Kuhl on how babies learn language best from people, not screens.

• Serve & Return (Harvard Center on the Developing Child): A fantastic resource with videos and guides on how these interactions build a baby’s brain.

• Book: “The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind” by Alison Gopnik, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Patricia K. Kuhl

• Book: “The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child’s Developing Mind” by Daniel J. Siegel and Tina Payne Bryson

  ---

  Thanks for reading Children's Media Reform: Research, Guidelines, Solutions! This post is public so feel free to share it.

  Share

The Polarizing Debate That Divides, Exhausts & Numbs Us

For nearly two decades, the phrase “no screen time before age two” has defined how parents think about media. It was born from strong science and good intentions; studies showing that infants and toddlers learn far more from live human interaction than from educational media broadcast on a screen or device.

Researchers were right to be cautious: early neural development is fragile, and most commercial media has been designed to capture attention for monetary gain.

But those early findings have since cemented rigid policies that no longer reflect the reality or complexity of modern parenting. For many families, especially those navigating exhaustion, postpartum depression, financial hardship, or social isolation, these rigid guidelines have become nearly impossible to follow. When guidance becomes unattainable, it stops supporting families and starts burdening them with guilt.

But parents and researchers both want the same thing: babies who thrive through connection, curiosity, and developmentally beneficial stimulation. What’s missing is a bridge between scientific caution and everyday parenting. We need research that studies what works, not just what fails, and content creators willing to design with evidence, not just instinct. But this is much easier said than done, as both scenarios require funding that is difficult to come by, for many nuanced reasons.

Parenting Under Pressure

Research shows that roughly 85% of new mothers experience postpartum blues, and 17% of parents experience more serious depression. When these struggles meet the expectation of “good parenting,” the emotional cost is enormous. A message that simply says “no screens” without offering support or nuance only further exacerbates matters.

At the same time, scientists and pediatricians remain deeply concerned about what happens when children under 2 are regularly exposed to poorly designed media. Decades of research confirm that most content for young children is overstimulating and developmentally harmful. Infants can’t process language, storylines, actions, or scenes and sequencing the way older children can,. And although the “video deficit” effect remains a consistent finding, there is also conflicting research showing that infants under 18 months exhibit a surprising ability to acquire information obtained via video viewing, and certain screen media may actually be beneficial.

What If Both Sides Are Right?

Parents are right that digital media is now part of everyday life. Screens are how we connect with family, find community, and sometimes just catch our breath. Parents have been searching for realistic, guilt-free guidance and solutions that honors their circumstances.

Researchers are right that the evidence still shows significant risks and limited benefits for infants under 18 months. They want to protect the developing brain from overstimulation and other harmful elements, especially when marketing and misinformation have blurred the line between “educational” and exploitative content.

The problem isn’t parents or scientists - it’s a system that pits them against each other instead of bringing them together.

How We Got Here

Today, most infants encounter screens starting at an average age of 4 months, and average nearly an hour per day by 6 months. Over 75% of children begin to watch television regularly before their first birthday. Yet very little research has explored what high-quality, developmentally appropriate infant media might look like if it were designed intentionally. Studies that do exist, such as Infants Learn Baby Signs from Video, hint that under specific conditions, learning is possible. But these findings are rarely replicated or scaled, largely because there is no funding stream or incentive structure for that kind of work.

And here’s where the disconnect becomes harmful. Parents are told to avoid screens entirely, but when they inevitably turn to them, the available content is often the worst kind: frenetic, fast-cut, and overstimulating. Even respected brands like PBS Kids, which create outstanding preschool content, do not produce material for children under two. That leaves a vacuum filled by unregulated YouTube channels using algorithms and advertising to capture parental trust.

A Problem Hidden in Plain Sight

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation for no screen time under 18 months was shaped by studies concluding that infants learn less from video than from live interaction, and that screen time was linked to poorer language and cognitive outcomes. However, one of the studies that informed the AAP’s guidelines, Television and Very Young Children (2005), cites research from another study that found positive associations of language learning with exposure to some children’s TV programs.

And other research, like Infants Learn Baby Signs from Video, provide evidence that learning may be possible for infants (younger than 18 months) under specific conditions. But such findings are rare and often underfunded. Meanwhile, because no major public broadcaster develops content for children under two, the gap has been filled by algorithm-driven YouTube channels promising “educational” benefits with little to no oversight.

In 2019, the American Psychological Association (APA) released one of the most sweeping reviews ever done on professional policy statements about media effects on youth. Over three decades, advocacy and health organizations had published dozens of statements warning about screens, many of them seemingly well-grounded. But when the APA committee - composed of doctoral-level researchers and clinicians - analyzed all 24 publicly available statements using a standardized rubric, what they found was alarming.

- Citation bias was common in 79.2% of the policy statements - meaning they selectively cited research that confirmed harm while ignoring studies that didn’t.

- Issues of false consistency were identified in 91.7% of the policy statements, despite ongoing debate in the field.

- Issues of clarity and transparency were very common among the policy statements.

- Issues of overgeneralization were found in 62.5% of the policy statements.

- Insulation - Only one policy statements made any references to diverse viewpoints.

- 29.2% of policy statements either relied on non-credible sources or failed to provide adequate sources.

The APA concluded that many of these statements were so methodologically flawed that they risked misrepresenting entire research fields to policymakers and the public.

In plain terms: even the organizations parents trust most have been overstating the science. This has resulted in serious, and likely unintended, consequences.

To this date, most research on media and young children is based on content that is already known to be harmful and fails to take a closer look at the kind of high-quality, research-informed content we could be designing.

Building a Better Bridge

It doesn’t have to be this way. Rather than doubling down on fear or shame, we can use science to guide innovation. We can ask new research questions: What types of sensory pacing, visuals, and interactions might be more developmentally appropriate? What production techniques do we know to be harmful and overstimulating? How can we encourage and support co-viewing that leads to co-play?

Researchers can help define age-appropriate pacing, visuals, and interactions to support more mindful screen time. Creators can build content that reinforces real-world connection instead of replacing it. And policymakers can support research that studies what works, not just what fails.

A Shared Goal

We can honor both the research and the realities, and work together to design media that truly supports the earliest years of life – or at the very least – is a much better alternative to the current options available to parents of children under 2.

The next evolution of this conversation needs to include empathy for parents, accountability for industry, and collaboration between researchers and creators.

Author Note

Will Maurer is the Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL), a global initiative dedicated to reimagining early childhood media through science, empathy, and design. His upcoming TEDx talk, “Screen Time for Children Under 2: Fixing a Broken System”, explores how to rebuild trust between parents, policymakers, and media creators. Subscribe for future essays that challenge old assumptions and build new paths forward for the next generation.

This is how many of today’s so-called “educational” shows capture attention - by flooding infants’ and toddlers’ developing brains with sensory overload.

But here’s the problem: when dopamine spikes replace connection, learning gets drowned out. What’s marketed as “baby safe” or “educational” often conditions children’s brains to crave chaos rather than supporting the slow, steady growth they truly need.

The Science Behind the Noise

Decades of neuroscience confirm what many parents already feel in their gut: the earliest media exposures shape development. Infants and toddlers learn best through pro-social play and connection - eye contact, gestures, turn-taking, and repetition.

When overstimulation dominates the screen, the neural pathways become dysregulated. The brain adapts to expect constant stimulation, making it harder for children to focus, remember, and engage in the subtle, human interactions that actually drive learning. In other words, once a child’s brain is hooked on chaos, the “educational” content underneath doesn’t stand a chance.

Conforming vs. Reforming

Most children’s media today conforms. Creators chase engagement metrics, advertising dollars, and subscriber counts, relying on deceptive techniques to capture children’s attention and parent’s trust. The result is content that prioritizes profit over development.

At the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL), we are committed to research and reform. Our mission is to design and advocate for media that slows down, mirrors real human interaction, and respects the science of early childhood development. Reform means replacing distraction with connection, and exploitation with intention.

A Practical Check for Parents

When you choose a program for your child, ask:

Is this helping my child connect: with me, with themselves, with the world?

If the answer is no, that’s a red flag. Look for slower pacing, meaningful interaction cues, and content you could imagine replicating in real life.

Why I’m Here

After more than 20 years in the media industry, I’ve seen how deeply broken this system is. As a parent and as the Executive Director of CMRRL, I’ve made it my mission to expose the deceptive production practices, flawed research, and rigid policies that benefit corporations while leaving families blamed and unsupported.

This isn’t a parenting failure. It’s a systemic failure. And it’s one we can fix.

Join the Movement

Children’s media doesn’t have to be this way. Reform is possible, but it requires collective pressure and support.

🌱 Subscribe and share this Substack with parents, educators, and caregivers in your community.

🌱 Sign and share our petition to show your support for children’s media reform: www.cmrrl.org/reform

🌱 Support the work of CMRRL so we can continue building alternatives that put the needs of our youngest and most vulnerable first. CMRRL is a registered 501c3 nonprofit and all US donations are tax deductible.

Together, we can ensure that the first screen experiences for infants and toddlers nurture connection - not chaos.

Subscribe now