Kids’ Screen Time: What Should Replace It?

Australia is having another screen-time conversation.

New South Wales has just announced limits on how much time public-school students will spend learning on individual digital devices from 2027. Victoria is moving in the same broad direction, with minimal classroom device use in the early primary years, limits for older primary students and planned device-free learning in secondary schools.

That will inevitably restart the familiar question at home too: how much screen time is too much?

But after looking through the current Australian guidance and research, we think there is another question that can be more useful:

If we reduce a child’s screen time, what exactly do we want to put back into that space?

Because an hour away from a screen is not automatically an hour well spent. What matters is whether children have enough room in the day for sleep, movement, face-to-face conversation, reading, drawing, imaginative play, friends, family and — sometimes — simply doing nothing very organised at all.

In this article: Our short answer · Why Australia is talking about screens · Not all screen time is the same · What should go back in? · Different ages · Making limits workable · What research can tell us · FAQ

Key Takeaways

Australian guidance still recommends limits on sedentary recreational screen time, but eSafety also stresses that there is no single “magic” number for every child.
Context matters: a video call with Grandma, drawing creatively on a tablet and endlessly scrolling short videos are not equivalent experiences.
A useful test is whether screen use is regularly displacing sleep, physical activity, face-to-face relationships, reading, creative play or other important parts of childhood.
Reducing screens works better when families know what will replace them rather than leaving only a rule and an empty hour.
Adults’ own device habits are part of the family environment too.

Our short answer: focus less on winning the minute-counting battle

The Australian Government recommends no more than two hours a day of sedentary recreational screen time for children and young people aged 5–17, separate from screen use needed for school work. For younger children, the recommendations are tighter.

But eSafety makes an equally important point: there is no magic figure that tells you whether an individual child’s digital life is healthy. Age, maturity, content, learning needs, family routine and what the screen use is replacing all matter.

So we would use the time recommendations as a useful boundary, not as the only measure of a healthy childhood.

Why Australia is talking about screens again

On 13 September 2026, the NSW Government announced new limits for screen-based learning in public schools. From 2027, the guidelines will recommend no individual student device use in public preschools, up to 15 minutes a day for Kindergarten to Year 2, 30 minutes for Years 3–4 and 45 minutes for Years 5–6. Older students will have limits based on subject time. The limits are due to become mandatory in 2028.

The policy also recommends at least an hour a day of learning using pen and paper and discourages screen-based homework before Year 5.

Victoria has already set a similar direction. From 2027, its primary-school digital-learning policy expects minimal device use in Foundation–Year 2 and a maximum of 90 minutes a day in Years 3–6, while secondary schools are expected to include planned device-free learning.

These are school policies, not new medical limits for families at home. We should not turn a classroom rule into a claim that 16 minutes on a tablet is suddenly harmful.

What we think is interesting is the broader shift behind the policies: technology can be useful, but it should not automatically become the default way children learn, play or fill every quiet moment.

Not all screen time is the same

One of the weaknesses of the phrase “screen time” is that it puts very different activities into one bucket.

A child might use a screen to video-call a grandparent, create digital artwork, research a school project, watch a carefully chosen program with a parent, play an online game with friends, or scroll rapidly through algorithmic short-form content.

Those experiences differ in content, social interaction, pace, purpose and what the child is doing cognitively.

A 2024 JAMA Pediatrics systematic review and meta-analysis of early-childhood screen-use contexts found that context mattered: age-inappropriate content and background television were associated with poorer outcomes, while co-use with caregivers was positively associated with cognitive outcomes. That does not mean co-viewing turns unlimited screen time into a benefit. It does mean “minutes” alone miss part of the picture.

eSafety says much the same thing in practical terms: the quality and nature of what a child is doing online, and adult involvement, matter alongside the clock.

So what do we actually want to put back in?

This is the part of the screen-time conversation we find most useful.

1. Movement

Australian movement guidelines recommend at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity each day for children aged 5–17, plus several hours of lighter activity. For preschoolers, the recommendation is at least three hours of physical activity spread across the day, including energetic play.

That does not have to mean organised sport. Running around the backyard, walking the dog, riding a scooter, climbing at the playground, dancing in the kitchen and helping outside all count as real movement.

If the tablet goes away and the child simply moves to another chair, we have reduced screen time but not necessarily added movement.

2. Sleep

This is one of the clearest opportunity-cost questions. Is online time pushing bedtime later or keeping a device in the bedroom?

Australian Government guidance recommends 9–11 hours of sleep for children aged 5–13 and 8–10 hours for 14–17-year-olds, with screens avoided in the hour before sleep and kept out of bedrooms. eSafety similarly suggests looking at whether online time is interfering with sleep.

We recently looked at this from another angle in our daylight-saving article: protecting enough opportunity for sleep matters more than chasing a perfect bedtime.

3. Conversation

For very young children, this can be especially important. A 2024 meta-analysis of children aged 0–3 found more total screen time was negatively associated with early language development, while co-viewing and later introduction were positively associated with language outcomes. Another large screen-context meta-analysis emphasised caregiver involvement and the context in which media is used.

This does not mean a cartoon “causes” a language delay. Families, children and screen habits differ in many ways, and much of this evidence is correlational.

But it reinforces a simple point: a screen can occupy time that might otherwise include back-and-forth talk.

4. Reading and drawing

The current NSW school policy explicitly wants more pen-and-paper learning. At home, we do not think this needs to become homework.

A book on the couch, comics, drawing, colouring, cutting and pasting, writing a note, making a ridiculous treasure map or inventing a menu for a pretend café all give hands and minds something different to do.

They are not valuable merely because they are “screen-free”. They are valuable because of what the child is actually doing.

5. Play that the child has to lead

We have written before about why we like simple toys: blocks, figures, puzzles, balls and pretend-play objects do not decide the whole activity for the child.

But screen-free play does not require buying anything. A cardboard box, cushions, dirt, sticks, water, chalk and an old sheet can all become play materials.

The question we like is: who is doing most of the work — the entertainment, or the child?

6. Face-to-face time

eSafety recommends looking at whether online time is getting in the way of face-to-face relationships with friends and family.

This does not mean online friendships are fake. For some children — including children who are isolated, disabled, neurodivergent or part of niche communities — online connection can be genuinely important.

But children also need chances to negotiate ordinary physical-world relationships: taking turns, reading expressions, disagreeing, inventing games and working out what to do when nobody has supplied the next piece of content.

7. A little unfilled time

We are cautious about romanticising boredom. A parent who is trying to cook dinner does not need to be told that a screaming child’s boredom is secretly magical.

Still, not every quiet moment needs immediate digital filling. Sometimes children need a chance to look around, complain that there is “nothing to do”, and eventually decide what happens next.

What about educational screen time?

Useful digital learning absolutely exists.

A 2023 meta-analysis of screen media and vocabulary found a small positive relationship between screen media and vocabulary overall, with stronger effects in experimental studies and some positive associations for educational media. The 2024 JAMA Pediatrics review also suggests that screen context and co-use matter.

So “screen = passive” and “paper = learning” is too simplistic.

We think the better question is whether technology is adding something useful. Is the child creating, communicating, solving or accessing something that is genuinely better suited to the device? Or is the screen there because it is the easiest default?

The answer changes with age

Under 2

Australian movement guidance recommends no sedentary screen time for children under two. Real family life can include video calls, medical needs, travel and difficult days, so this is best understood as a public-health recommendation rather than a reason to shame parents.

2–5 years

Australian guidance recommends no more than one hour of sedentary screen time a day for ages 2–5, with less being better. It also recommends reading, storytelling, puzzles, blocks, painting and craft as quiet alternatives.

At this age, adult involvement and content choice matter particularly strongly.

Primary-school children

For ages 5–17, Australian guidance recommends no more than two hours of recreational sedentary screen time a day, excluding school work. But school itself is becoming increasingly digital, which is exactly why the current policy debate matters.

After a screen-heavy school day, a child may need movement, food and decompression before another digital activity. Another child might have done almost no device work and want to play a game with a friend. Context matters.

Teenagers

Older children use screens for school, social life, creativity, entertainment and increasingly work. A simple household stopwatch becomes less realistic.

Sleep, compulsive use, mood, movement, relationships and the nature of what they are doing become more informative questions. eSafety recommends involving children and young people in creating fair and consistent family expectations rather than relying only on punishment.

If you want less screen conflict, decide what happens after “off”

“Turn it off” is a boundary. It is not yet a plan.

If we ask a child to stop a highly engaging activity and provide no transition, no warning and nothing accessible to move towards, we should not be surprised when the transition is difficult.

eSafety suggests involving children in a family plan, using consistent boundaries and giving a warning before switch-off. Its updated family tech agreements are designed as collaborative expectations rather than simply punishment contracts.

This connects closely with our recent article on firm and gentle parenting. A screen limit can remain a limit even when a child is unhappy about it. Their frustration does not automatically mean the boundary is wrong.

Instead of only saying…	Think about adding…
“No more iPad.”	A warning, a clear finish point and something physically available afterwards.
“Go play.”	Access to outdoor space, drawing materials, blocks, books or a simple invitation to help with what you are doing.
“Screens are bad for you.”	A more accurate reason: sleep, movement, family time or another activity also needs space today.
“You’re addicted.”	Describe the behaviour without labelling the child: stopping is difficult, so the adults will help hold the limit.

What the research can — and cannot — tell us

Screen research is difficult because “screen time” is not one exposure, children do not use media randomly, and many studies are observational.

For example, an older large meta-analysis of academic performance found that total screen-media time itself was not significantly associated with academic performance overall, while television viewing and video-game use showed small negative associations with some academic outcomes. That is another reminder not to collapse every screen activity into one number.

A 2025 systematic review and compositional meta-analysis of 24-hour movement behaviours found that more moderate-to-vigorous activity, more sleep and less sedentary time relative to the rest of the day were favourably associated with social-emotional health, but the effects were small and most included studies were cross-sectional.

So we should be wary of headlines claiming screens directly “cause” every attention, language, weight, sleep or mental-health problem.

At the same time, uncertainty does not mean families need no boundaries. Children only have 24 hours. If one activity expands enough, something else has less room.

What we think the current screen-time conversation gets wrong

It often turns into a moral contest between “screen parents” and “screen-free parents”. We do not think that is useful.

Technology is part of modern childhood. Children need digital literacy. Screens can provide creativity, communication, accessibility and genuinely good learning.

But “digital native” should not have to mean “digital by default”.

We like the direction of asking what else a child’s day contains. Did they sleep? Move? Talk? Read something? Make something? Play with somebody? Spend time outside? Have a little space that was not programmed for them?

If those things are broadly present, the screen-time conversation becomes less about policing every minute and more about protecting a varied childhood.

A practical family check

Is recreational screen use regularly delaying sleep?
Does the child still get enough daily movement?
Are there device-free moments where the family actually talks?
Does the child have easy access to books, drawing materials or simple play?
Can they sometimes tolerate waiting or an unfilled moment without immediately needing a device?
Is the content age-appropriate?
Are adults sometimes co-viewing, creating or talking about what happens online?
Do the family’s rules apply predictably rather than changing according to adult frustration?
Are adults modelling at least some of the behaviour they ask from children?
When screen time comes down, have we made room for something worthwhile to go up?

Frequently asked questions

How much recreational screen time does the Australian Government recommend for school-age children?

For children and young people aged 5–17, the Australian Government recommends no more than two hours a day of sedentary recreational screen time. This does not include screen time required for school work.

Does that mean every child should have exactly two hours?

No. It is a population-level guideline, not a personal prescription. eSafety says there is no magic figure and recommends considering age, maturity, content, learning needs, family routine and whether online time is interfering with sleep, exercise or face-to-face relationships.

Is educational screen time bad?

No. Quality, context and purpose matter. Some digital activities can support learning and creativity. For younger children especially, co-use with an adult and age-appropriate content can change the experience.

What can replace screen time without buying more toys?

Outdoor play, walking, books, drawing, cardboard boxes, cushions, chalk, water play, cooking, music, helping with household tasks, imaginative games and time with friends can all fill the space without requiring a new product.

Should screen time be taken away as punishment?

eSafety advises avoiding limiting online time purely as punishment where possible because it can inflate its importance. Clear, predictable family boundaries and collaborative tech agreements can be more useful.

Are the new NSW school screen limits the same as health guidelines?

No. They are education-policy limits on individual student device use in NSW public schools. They should not be presented as medical thresholds for children’s home screen use.

Sources & fact-check notes

NSW Department of Education — screen-use limits announced 13 September 2026.
Victorian Department of Education — Digital Learning Policy, 2027 device-use expectations.
Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing — 24-hour movement guidelines.
eSafety Commissioner — Screen time; Family tech agreements; Choosing good online content.
Mallawaarachchi et al. (2024), JAMA Pediatrics — systematic review/meta-analysis of early-childhood screen-use contexts.
Screen exposure and early language development meta-analysis (2024), Early Child Development and Care.
Adelantado-Renau et al. (2019), JAMA Pediatrics — screen media and academic performance systematic review/meta-analysis.
Bourke et al. (2025) — 24-hour movement behaviours and mental health systematic review/meta-analysis.

Fact-check boundary: Much screen-use research is observational and cannot establish simple causation. This article distinguishes Australian public-health recommendations from school policy and does not treat all digital activities as equivalent.

If We Reduce Kids’ Screen Time, What Do We Want to Put Back In?