Children perform better if mother stays at home

Tyrael · #1 17th-October-2006

This article is a couple of months old but still interesting to read. Link.

Quote:

Children perform better if mother stays at home

By STEVE DOUGHTY, Daily Mail Last updated at 01:01am on 9th June 2006

Babies should be looked after by their mothers in their first years of life, Tony Blair's favourite think tank signalled yesterday.

It published research that admitted babies and toddlers sent for long hours in daycare learn less quickly, have worse health, and behave worse than other children.

It also suggested that the children suffer because mothers who return home from work tired and unhappy are less able to give them the time and full attention they need.

The warnings over childcare published by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggest a dramatic rethink over working mothers and childcare at the heart of the Blairite establishment.

Since 1997 Labour has poured billions into subsidising nurseries and childminders through the tax credit system, through direct daycare benefits, and through the troubled Sure Start project meant to help the neediest families.

Persuading mothers to go back to work soon after their children are born has been a central plank of Mr Blair's 'project'.

Three years ago the Department of Trade and Industry - then headed by current Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt - published a paper describing those who do not return to jobs in the first two years after childbirth as a 'problem'.

It said mothers who stayed at home were not giving the taxpayer a return on the cost of their education.

Despite growing evidence from independent studies that full-time childcare can have harmful effects, new figures from the Education Department last week boasted proudly that a record number of more than 700,000 children now attend nurseries for more than four hours a day.

But two articles in the IPPR's journal said the children would be better off staying at home with their mothers.

Psychologist and TV presenter Oliver James, who described himself as a 'reasonable left wing person', said he was sceptical about the drive for 'affordable childcare'.

He said: 'My proviso comes in when politicians, who have the evidence about how important early care is on children's development, decide that only people doing paid work are of any value and that there is a moral duty for us all to do a paid day's work. 'Trying to persuade parents of very young children, particularly single mothers, to leave them and go out to work, while not an unqualified no no, fails to recognise that somebody has got to be left holding the baby and that, on the whole, it is better if it is one of the child's biological parents up to the age of three.' Oliver James added: 'On the whole children who attend daycare under three are at greater risk of being aggressive.

'I am arguing for us to rediscover feminism. Let's actually have female emancipation and not the nonsense that we have got now. One part of that is definitely supporting women who do want to care for their children to be able to do so.' A second article by US academic Janet Waldfogel told IPPR subscribers that in the first year after birth 'there are reasons to think that exclusive mother care would be best for a child.'

She cited learning ability, health and social development as adversely affected for those who are in childcare before their first birthday.

'Across all three dimensions, with all things held equal, children tend to do worse if their mothers work in the first year of life,' she said. Children also did best if they lived in two-parent families, she added, in a view that conflicts with the Government's policy that claims all kinds of families are just as good as each other.

Both IPPR journal contributors said there should be 'costly' new public spending to pay salaries or give more time off work to new mothers.

But critics of subsidised childcare said the best way to help mothers stay at home was to give tax breaks to help one-earner families.

Jill Kirby of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies said: 'It is gradually dawning on the Government that they should do nothing more to penalise mothers who stay at home with their children.

'There is very strong evidence that childcare, and in particular the mass cheap childcare that Labour favours, is not in the best interests of young children.
'The way to help mothers is not to put even more burdens on taxpayers or employers, but to cut taxes for one earner, two parent families with young children. Tax breaks would ease the difficulties for families at the point of greatest pressure.'

Tyrael · #2 17th-October-2006

Can a moderator fix the font. I don't have a EDIT button. Thanks.

Marx · #3 17th-October-2006

Not a prob...
A suggestion for future use may be to use the 'preview post' function found next to the 'post thread' button. This will allow you to see it fully prior to sending it.

Manowar · #4 17th-October-2006

I imagine children would fair better if FATHERS or MOTHERS sayed home during their early infancy. That seems to be fairly obvious. It is rather nauseating that they saw fit to make it a one sided gender issue.

bola · #5 17th-October-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

I imagine children would fair better if FATHERS or MOTHERS sayed home during their early infancy. That seems to be fairly obvious. It is rather nauseating that they saw fit to make it a one sided gender issue.

Mothers should preferably stay at home, not the fathers. They are better suited to handle children, especially little ones. It's always been their task, why make things unnecessarily difficult.

Manowar · #6 18th-October-2006

Quote:

Mothers should preferably stay at home, not the fathers. They are better suited to handle children, especially little ones. It's always been their task, why make things unnecessarily difficult.

I assume that was meant to be facitious.

bola · #7 18th-October-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

I assume that was meant to be facitious.

And I assume that was meant to be "facetious" :-)

No, actually I meant it.

Manowar · #8 18th-October-2006

You want equality and complain about misandry, but you subsribed to those ridicuus stereotypes? That is extremely inconsistent. Sorry, but I disagree. WIth all of the hypersensitivity on thhis board to issues that society in general treats men unfairly, I am surprised at this inconsistency and disagree with it.

bola · #9 18th-October-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

You want equality and complain about misandry, but you subsribed to those ridicuus stereotypes? That is extremely inconsistent. Sorry, but I disagree. WIth all of the hypersensitivity on thhis board to issues that society in general treats men unfairly, I am surprised at this inconsistency and disagree with it.

I want equality to the law (there is no other kind of equality), but not sameness. Men and women are different. To ignore this, is not only cruel but also irresponsible.

Manowar · #10 18th-October-2006

If that is so, then why get upset when commercials portray women more often as caretakers or why courts take that into consideration when making custody decisions in a divorce. Your beliefs are based on the same outdated social conventions that the court system's laws are based on.

I disagree.

bola · #11 18th-October-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

If that is so, then why get upset when commercials portray women more often as caretakers or why courts take that into consideration when making custody decisions in a divorce.

I don't object to that.

Marx · #12 18th-October-2006

I have to disagree that women are simply better at handling kids for the sole reason they're women. I'm a SAHD myself (when back over there), so am speaking with experience.
Initially, I admit I had difficulties coping, but it wasn't the baby that was my problem. My extended family are extraordinarily invovled in just about everything that doesn't involve them and their constant dabbling was where my problems lay. Once I was out of their grip and surrounded by sanity my problems disappeared virtually overnight.
Anyway, I've spent about 18 months being a SAHD and not regretted it one bit. Sadly, I'm told I have to get a job as money is far more important.