Beaconly
The Science of Growing Up

Is My Child Doing Too Much? What the Research Can and Cannot Tell Us

Is there a number of hours that is too many? What US and Singapore research can and can’t tell parents, and four questions to ask instead.

By The Editorial Team

Tuition, enrichment, swimming, homework. If you have wondered whether your child is doing too much, you are not alone. One 2026 national survey asked parents of primary-school children a related question. Nearly nine in ten at least somewhat agreed that children here spend too much time on tuition and enrichment.

It is a fair question, and asking it does not mean you are getting something wrong. But “too much” is hard to pin down, so we looked at what the research says.

Is there a number of hours that is too many?

We looked for one. We did not find it.

What we found was a lot of American research on children’s activities. A 2006 review of that research found that few young people had an extreme schedule. They averaged about five hours a week in organised activities. Only 3 to 6 percent spent 20 hours or more. The review concluded there was “scant support for the over-scheduling hypothesis”.

That review counted sports, clubs and the arts separately from educational activities, so it says little about tuition. It is also American, and its own new analyses were one-time snapshots. Still, it is a reason not to assume that a full schedule is harmful in itself.

If it isn’t the hours, what is it?

In one US study, feeling criticised was more strongly linked to problems than being busy.

Researchers looked closer. Researchers studied 314 eighth graders: their activities and how they were doing. The children were older than yours and lived in one wealthy town.

They found little evidence that being busy was harmful in itself. Children who felt their parents were critical of them did worse. So did children with no adult around after school. That is a link, not proof.

There was one exception. More hours of academic activities, including tutoring, went with some problems. The authors suggest the link may run the other way: struggling children may have been sent to tutoring.

So the strongest links were not with the hours. They were with how children saw their parents, and whether an adult was around.

What about children here?

We found little Singapore research on this, and none that tests whether tuition helps or harms.

One Singapore study followed 432 children. Overall, the balance of active, still and sleeping time was not linked to later test results. But at age 8, organised sport, medium amounts of outdoor play and reading went with higher scores. More television went with lower academic scores. These are links, not proof, and the families in the study are not representative of Singapore.

The 2026 survey tells us what parents report about how families spend their time. On average, parents reported about three and a half hours of tuition a week. They reported just over two hours of enrichment and just over four of homework.

Put together, these are clues, not a verdict.

What to do with this

The research cannot give you a number. It can suggest where to look. These questions are our suggestions, not research findings. No study we read has tested them as a checklist.

  1. Who chose it? Did your child want to try it, or was it arranged for them?
  2. How good is it? An hour can be well run or badly run. The studies we read mostly counted time, not quality, so this one rests on what you see.
  3. What is it replacing? Time for one thing is time not spent on another. Sleep is one example. Singapore’s 2022 activity guide recommends 9 to 12 hours of sleep a day for ages 7 to 13. A 2022 NUS brief said many school-age children here got less than recommended on school days. It does not say when that was measured.
  4. How does it feel when it goes badly? After a poor result, does your child expect support or criticism? In the US study, children who felt criticised did worse, though that is a link, not proof.

Try this week (a suggestion, not a research finding): sit with your child and write out one normal week together. Include school, activities, homework and sleep. Ask what they look forward to and what they would rather skip. Notice what is being squeezed.

The evidence behind this

For readers who want to check our work. Each source below shows what it looked at, what it found and where it falls short. Quotes and figures are exact, and the Sources list at the end links to the originals.

A US study of 314 eighth graders (Luthar and colleagues, 2006)

  • Looked at: Eighth graders, “approaching 14 years of age”, from one affluent American town, 93% of them white. It compared weekly hours in sports, arts, civic and academic activities with distress, grades, delinquency and substance use.
  • Found: The authors found “negligible evidence for deleterious effects of high extracurricular involvement per se”. Perceived parent criticism and the absence of after-school supervision were far more strongly implicated.
  • Academic activities, which included math club and tutoring, were the only type linked to problems on more than one outcome. Girls with more academic hours reported more delinquency and substance use. Boys with more academic hours had lower grades.
  • There was “some modest evidence” that girls with very high academic hours were most troubled when they also saw their parents as critical and focused on achievement.
  • Limits: These are correlations, measured at one point in time, in one town. The authors suggest parents may have enrolled struggling children in tutoring, and they call for longitudinal research. The study did not separate tutoring from math club and similar activities.

A 2006 review of US research (Mahoney, Harris and Eccles)

  • Looked at: Earlier studies, plus new analyses of time diaries from US children aged 5 to 18, collected in 2002 and 2003.
  • Found: Young people spent about 5 hours a week in organised activities on average. Roughly 40% took part in none at a given time. Between 3 and 6 percent spent 20 or more hours a week. The authors concluded there was “scant support for the over-scheduling hypothesis”.
  • Limits: The new analyses were cross-sectional, with only two diary days per child. It describes two earlier studies of weekly hours; both were cross-sectional too, with students in grades 6 to 12 and in grade 8. The review says research had only begun to ask whether results vary with the features of an activity.
  • It counted educational activities separately from organised activities, so its findings should not be carried over to tuition.

A Singapore study of 432 children (Padmapriya and colleagues, 2024)

  • Looked at: Children in the GUSTO cohort. Parents reported activities such as indoor and outdoor active play, organised sport, screens, reading and board games. Wrist devices measured movement and sleep. Children were tested on executive function at 8½ and on academic achievement at 9.
  • Found: The overall balance of active, sedentary and sleep time, at ages 5½ and 8, was not linked to either outcome.
  • At age 8, organised sport went with higher executive function (by 0.221 of a standard deviation) and academic achievement (by 0.239).
  • Medium outdoor play, compared with low, went with 0.201 higher executive function and 0.273 higher academic achievement.
  • Each extra hour a day of reading went with 0.134 higher executive function and 0.302 higher academic achievement.
  • Each extra hour a day of television went with 0.091 lower academic achievement. High indoor active play went with 0.266 lower executive function.
  • At age 5½, relatively more vigorous activity went with lower academic achievement at 9 (−0.367 standard deviations; 95% confidence interval −0.726 to −0.009; 251 children). At age 8 the link was not statistically significant. The authors suggest displacement of sleep or academic time, and say this “warrants further investigation”.
  • Limits: These are associations, not effects. Parents reported the activities. The cohort is not representative of Singapore. The activity list did not include tuition or enrichment classes. Models were adjusted for sex, ethnicity, BMI, and the mother’s age and education, plus other activities and sleep.

A national survey of 1,500 parents (Institute of Policy Studies, September 2026)

  • Looked at: Singapore Citizen and permanent resident parents of children in local primary schools.
  • Found: Parents reported, on average, 3.49 hours a week of tuition, 2.32 of enrichment and 4.30 of homework (medians 3, 2 and 3). Tuition time ranged from 2.53 hours in HDB 1–3-room homes to 5.01 hours in landed homes.
  • 89.8% at least somewhat agreed that children here spend too much time on tuition and enrichment. 84.9% at least somewhat agreed that tuition gives an advantage in the PSLE. 87.9% reported stress about their child’s education at least once in the past year, against 73.1% in 2016.
  • Limits: It records what parents say, not how children are doing, and the stress figure is the parents’. It covers every primary level. The report does not say whether children with no tuition count as zero in the averages.
  • The 2016 comparison used a different sample and fieldwork, and the 2026 stress question had an extra answer option. The report does not list time use among its directly comparable measures.

Sleep guidance and the NUS brief (2022)

  • Singapore’s 2022 consensus guide recommends 9 to 12 hours of sleep per 24 hours for ages 7 to 13.
  • An NUS evidence brief (November 2022) reported that 65% of school-age children in Singapore did not get nine to 11 hours of sleep on school days. Nine to 11 hours is the US National Sleep Foundation’s range for ages 6 to 13.
  • A companion report gives an average of 8.4 hours on weekday nights for ages 7 to 12, and cites an undated NUS sleep laboratory guide. Neither report says when or how the figures were measured. The brief lists longer homework and study time among the barriers to healthy sleep.

Not covered here

This page does not say how many hours is too many. It does not cover children with particular learning or health needs, or secondary school.

Sources