Posted on 12/30/2006 4:39:20 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Working mothers are harming their children's long-term development by sending them to nursery from an early age, a leading author said yesterday.
Michael Morpurgo, the former children's laureate, sparked controversy by saying that it was "utterly extraordinary" that half of mothers with children under five had jobs outside the home.
He said lack of contact between children and parents was directly to blame for rising levels of mental health problems, sleep disorders and anorexia in young people.
The comments were dismissed by child care groups, which said studies showed that youngsters benefited from increased contact with other children as early as possible. But they won support from the Conservatives, who said nurseries were subjecting children to an unnecessarily formal education.
The debate follows the launch of The Daily Telegraph's Hold on to Childhood campaign – a drive to raise awareness of the damage caused by junk food, marketing, over-competitive schooling and electronic entertainment on children's lives.
Mr Morpurgo, recently awarded an OBE for services to literature, said: "It is utterly extraordinary now how many children grow up without their mothers around them. You have got 50 per cent of mothers these days of children under five who are employed outside the home. Well, you are cutting off something there, whether you like it or not, and it may be an uncomfortable thing to recognise."
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that sending children to school at four or five was too early.
"We pack our children off to care groups or even to school, but many countries in Europe do not send their children until they are seven," he said. "They live in the bosom of their family. That is where they are nurtured – within the nest. That is where they can grow their wings, they can learn to fly." He added: "I don't think it is an accident that one in 10 of our children is suffering from mental health problems, from sleep disorders, from eating disorders and things like that."
In October, an eminent group of child care experts raised concerns about the long-term effect of placing children in inadequate day nurseries. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they said that separating children from their mothers risked "storing up behavioural difficulties".
Last year, research by Professor Michael Lamb, of Cambridge University, found that nurseries caused distress to young children. He found that levels of the stress hormone cortisol doubled in youngsters during the first nine days of child care without their mothers present and continued to be much higher among children five months after starting nursery compared with those who stayed at home.
Of the 521,000 day care places in England and Wales, about 85,000 are thought to be taken by under-threes.
Sue Palmer, a former head teacher, who wrote the book Toxic Childhood, charting the damaging influences of modern life, said: "Children need one-on-one care in their earliest years. It affects their education and gives them a head start in life. While nurseries can provide safety and warmth, they cannot provide the attention and consistency that a mother can."
However, Hayley Doyle, spokesman for the National Day Nurseries Association, said: "Many parents need to work and should not be criticised for choosing to send their children to a nursery. The vast majority of nurseries are recognised as being of a high standard and studies have shown that children who have been to them are, in the long term, higher achievers and better earners."
But David Willetts, the Conservative shadow education secretary, agreed that nursery education might be harming young children. "What is happening is we are making child care for three- and four-year-olds much too like a formal school experience – that's what all these Ofsted inspections are forcing them to do," he said. "We are not allowing children to go through their own development."
Penny Nicholls, strategic director of the Children's Society's two-year Good Childhood Inquiry, said: "We have one of the lowest wellbeing quotas in Europe for children. Even though we are twice as wealthy as we were 50 years ago, that wealth has not brought happiness."
Yep.
I think its great that you could be a stay home mother. I believe that is the best way. I was merely pointing out that in some cases it simply cannot be done.
I just read your homepage. How long have you been a member of the NEA?
It's good that you recognize the bum at least. Sometimes "family" will take advantage of soft relatives who might be naive.
I'm sure you only want to help your daughter out, it's just a shame that the bum gets to benefit.
As a mom, I'd have to agree with you on this one. I'll NEVER understand a mother who goes back to work soon after having a child. I can't help but wonder why they even bothered to have one in the first place. I would AT LEAST stay home the first three years, but the longer you wait, the better, in my opinion. The children I know who are in preschool DO tend to act out and get sick a lot. Not to mention that it's horrifying to me to put a complete stranger in charge of a child at such a tender age. It's much too important of a job to trust it to someone you don't even know.
And I understand how hard that is today for people who are starting a family. Really all I'm trying to do is say the joy of seeing my adult children turn out well trumped all other issues in my past.
Unfortunately, too many women are forced to provide and that's a real heartbreaker for the kids IMHO.
Steve, you won't get me to disagree. Personally, I suggest we end government based schooling at all levels and let people pay for what they get. Period.
I don't know if I buy it. It would be wonderful if all mothers could stay home, but it isn't a reality. I think a good mom will make a difference if she stays home or works.
My mom worked and my siblings and I all have good jobs and we are very close to our parents. My husband's mom stayed home and had 6 kids. 2 of them are completely disfunctional and can't hold a job. One lives far away and does not ever want to come back to visit. I hate going over there for the holidays.
My point - just because you stay home with your kids doesn't make you a good parent.
I cannot think of any act more antithetical to the maternal instinct than deliberately abandoning one's own young child, even if only for a few hours.
I'm making a sweeping indictment. Spend time with your child (4 years old and younger) and you will be richly rewarded. Pawn off the responsibility to others and take what you get. Sorry to be cold, but those are the facts as I see them. Some here may not like it. Tough.
Point made, but you have to start with a level of committment and a willingness to spend the time required. That doesn't guarantee the result, but your odds go up - significantly. And I don't know about you, but I play the odds.
Perhaps. But the societies were only those people have children who are able to afford it, will die out.
I wish the experts were wrong. It would make me feel better if children did great in daycare, because there are a huge number of single moms out there who are trapped on the working treadmill, trying to provide a living for themselves and their kids and not doing a very good job of it.
Please don't condemn me for saying this but things WERE better when there were very few single moms. Divorce and single women having babies are creating a large underclass of dysfunctional kids. This is something the studies are showing us bigtime, and we'd better wake up to it.
You'd be surprised.
My daughter and son in law have a beautiful baby daughter. They both work full time, and are finishing their education, part time. I babysit when I can, however, I'm a working Grandma.
At times they have to use daycare.
I defy you to find a toddler more loved, cherished, and happy. She is our gift from God.
They didn't plan the pregnancy, were using precautions, but my granddaughter was conceived.
Sometimes they have no other choice other than use daycare.
Would you rather they took another route, and heaven forbid, not have this precious baby?
Perhaps you should realize that not every siutation is perfect, and the main thing is that a child is loved and cherished.
there are alot of other harmful factors (to the children)that come about when moms work full time. Think about how hard it was in the past for a pediophile to breach a neighborhood when it was chocked full of stay at home moms who knew each other and everyones children. They'd have spied a stranger a mile away and been chasing them off in a heartbeat!
I have to say that I agree with you and also sympathize with you. I have been there, doing that now. Our daughter was in a similar situation and I was the primary caretaker of her twins until they were 3 then they went to an excellent pre-school, part-time. They are now 1st graders and doing pretty well.
My daughter and the twins moved in with us about 18 months ago and she filed for divorce. We are all glad that she is divorced and she is finally healing from the abuse she suffered from her insane husband. Her boys always considered our house their house, too, so it wasn't much of an adjustment FOR THEM. We love having them here and will be devastated if/when my daughter gets her own place.
That being said, let me assure you that it is extremely difficult adjusting to having a grown daughter and 2 children move in with you on a permanent basis. Sometimes it is pure delight and other times it seems like pure Hell.
My daughter is working part-time in a low paying job in order to be with her sons as much as possible. My husband and I both encouraged her to do this even though this causes us to sacrifice money for our retirement. We feel like the welfare of our daughter and grandchildren are the most important thing right now. We can only keep this up a few more years or our retirement will not be as comfortable as we had expected.
So be careful what you wish for.
P.S. I would still take them in a thousand times over rather than have her stay with that monster she married.
I think I would rate this story as the biggest load of manure I've seen in a long time.
Actually, you might be exactly right on the money there. I've seen 3 studies about forcing kids to learn to read early and how it can be damaging to developing brains. The better and more natural way is to give the kid massive amounts of exposure to text- and I mean thousands of hours- and then provide explicit instruction to address the areas that kids did not pick up on their own. But what to do when parents refuse to read to their kids because they are tired or busy? I scratch my head on that one daily. Of the 6 kids I have in my reading class, I think 4 of them would probably not be there if they had received the early ed instruction. And, I don't mean early ed by a pre-k teacher, but by a loving mom or dad holding him/her and showing by their actions that literacy is important and YOU are important.
If you would like I can see if I can find a link to one of those studies, I think it's still on line. It was put out by UVA in connection with one of my masters classes -- it might still be linkable. Very interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.