National promises to end screens in ECE and limit them in Years 1 to 3
National would end screen use and individual-device use in early childhood education and limit screen use in Years 1 to 3 if it is re-elected.
What National has promised
The commitments sit inside its Set Up for Success policy. The early childhood component is framed as a ban on screen time in centres. The schooling component is framed as limits in the first three years of primary. The policy also includes clearer developmental reports for parents on children's progress. RNZ
The announcement was carried in the party's newsroom as "Screen use to end in ECE and limits set in primary", dated 20 September 2026 and attributed to Erica Stanford. The party says ending screens in early childhood centres and setting limits in primary are initiatives to ensure children are ready for school. National Party RNZ described the early-childhood ban and Years 1 to 3 limits as measures a re-elected National government wants to implement. RNZ
The broader context here is that this is a campaign commitment, not a regulatory change. No legal instrument, commencement date or enforcement mechanism has been specified in the material released so far.
What early childhood advocates say
Early childhood advocates who spoke to RNZ gave the package a mixed response. They said the policy would give parents and teachers more clarity on how children are doing. According to RNZ, the reporting element drew the clearest support.
The screen-time ban drew more caution. Advocates told RNZ a ban could mean children miss out on benefits that classroom technology brings. Their point was not against limits in principle, but against a blunt tool.
Those RNZ spoke to included Tony Bracefield, who runs Clendon Christian Preschool in South Auckland, Kelly Seaburg, chair of Advocates for Early Learning Excellence, and Kiri Gould, a senior lecturer in early childhood education at the University of Auckland.
Gould told RNZ a blanket ban on children using smart devices risked oversimplifying the benefits of technology. As reported, her argument was that what matters is how devices are used, with what purpose and with what adult support, rather than whether they are present or not.
What is still unclear
Looking at how this would work in practice, the definitions will do most of the work. A ban on screen time, a ban on screens and an end to individual-device use are related but not identical. Centres will want to know whether teacher-directed use, such as showing a short clip to the whole group, falls inside the ban, and whether a centre-owned device used briefly alongside a teacher counts as individual-device use.
The broader context here is that clearer reports also need detailed design. There would need to be agreement on what is assessed, when, in what form and by whom. The questions are workload and consistency across a mixed-provider ECE system, and how any new report fits with existing assessment and with what new entrant teachers need.
In my view, the politics here are as instructive as the teaching questions. A screen ban is clear to parents, enforceable in principle and easy to campaign on. It also shifts debate away from funding and staffing toward standards and school readiness. That helps explain why National has bundled restrictions with parent-facing reporting. One promises less screen time, the other promises more information.
Looking ahead, the sector response points to where friction will sit. Providers welcome clarity for parents but are warier of a universal ban that treats all technology use as the same. Further debate is likely on exemptions, on guidance for Years 1 to 3, and on whether compliance is handled through licensing criteria, curriculum guidance or funding conditions.
