Working mums.... and dads

[Tom]

Has anyone read Kate Figes article in today's guardian? It'a about a "new" report saying that working mothers harm their kids educational chances. This is exactly the kind of thing that really annoys me - it's old research - kids from the 70s - where childcare was poor, working mothers were more the exception than the rule - Kate outlines a few reasons why it is not perhaps the most useful research around.

But what gets me is why mothers are blamed!!!! Why didn't they put anything about the damage "working fathers" do to their kids - presumably, all the research had shown was that where both parents worked (in the 70s), their kids had lower grades - but then they say that it is because the MOTHERS worked, and ignore the fact that the dads were working as well! This kind of thing just perpetuates the idea that children are women's responsibility and nothing to do with dads.

So working mothers get the blame (again)- fathers are excluded from any consideration of their parenting responsibilities (again) and we all get to feel guilty about what we are doing to our kids (again!)

Argh!

Tom this report was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and it dates back to the 70s because it had to track the children from babyhood to adulthood. The report is also covered in The Times where they say that the child benefits from either parent staying home under the age of five, but particularly the mother.
Although, as a working mum, I am deeply disheartened by this report, I am sure that the study is not trying to aportion blame. The JRF is a fairly well respected, impartial organisation. Surely it is better to be made aware of the facts, however unpalateable they may be?

Tom I thought of you this morning when they were talking about the report on BBC breakfast news. The report kept citing 'mothers' working full time and the effect it had on their children's educational outcomes (is that english, sorry!). Quite apart from the issues already raised about it being an 'old' study and things having changed with regard to the quality of childcare provision etc etc, it was the further underlining of 'working mothers' and not 'working parenst' that really pissed me off.

Kate Figes article was her usual sound response to scaremongering and a good balance, it's just a shame she can't get headline coverage on the news!

Yes, this report on working mums has made see red too. However, think positive. With lots of this stuff in the newspapers, it might hurry along more legistlation on maternity and paternity leave. You never know.

And is it coincidental that news of this report has come out now, when a general election is on the cards?

Thanks Tom for the link. It has been heavily reported in the other papers too. I too saw red. I spent the later part of yesterday pm at my son's nursery for a parent's meeting. While I was there, he was doing some sand and water play and later on tootling around on a ride-on toy in the fresh air with the other children. Every time I glanced out of the window he was clearly having a ball. Quite apart from the developmental and social opportunities his nursery offers him he would also not have a roof over his head if I didn't work. I know the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a laudable social policy remit and is reputable outfit, so why didn't someone there have a hard think about how this study would be used by journalists with an anti-working mother agenda? Why didn't their press briefing do the work that Kate Figes has done for them in pointing out that childcare has been transformed in the last 30 years, so one of the cornerstones of their findings is not relevant in 2001?

Tom, chill out, all this stress is not good for you!!. What on earth are these so called
"experts" trying to prove? This study was done in the 70's when my mother was a working mother, I am almost sure of this, but I do not feel that my grades were lower than children who's parents stayed at home. In fact my 'O' Grades were very good, I think that in the 70's the father was the bread winner and for the women/mother to work was frowned upon, and any man that changed a nappy was soft in the head. Before anyone goes ape shit at me saying that I am not having a go!!, I promise on my chocolate bar, that I am trying to ignore at the moment. This study is 30 years old, has there not been anything like it done since, on working parents, not just mothers. I do think that it is still the beliefs of some people that the "women" should stay and home and be strapped to the kitchen sink, NOT!, I'd like to see someone tell me to stay in and do the bloody hoovering, the language I'm afraid would be a bit flowery to say the least. Apart from that, what do these studies prove, so, if mothers work, like me and many others on this site, are we meant to have a huge guilt trip because some knowlegable fart has said that if we don't stay at home then in theory our children will not perform properly at school and in tests. Oh god in ranting I'm in a foul mood, my backs sore, husband spent most of the night dying and moaning about a bloody cold, men argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. And if we have a cold or flu, we go on, manage to do all the things we do and not one bugger asks how you are feeling?. Right I'm going, before I wreck the keyboard.

Stop press Tom but you might be interested in The Times' coverage of the report. On the website at least it is headlined Children fare better if one parent stays home...and reports that the study showed f/t work by the father had the same effect as p/t work by the mother. So dads do appear to have been mentioned at some point...
Cannot do links alas but the website is www.thetimes.co.uk

Thanks Marina
Tigger - can I have some of your chocolate please?

The BBC repotring on this, while balanced with a reasonably sensible comment from Margaret Hodge, focusses the issue entirely on mothers sigh.

I agree about the JRF - they are usually pretty progressive on these issues and am very surprised that they didn't pick up on the flaws in the research. Incedently, I recently got an enquiry about sitting on an advisory board at the JRF overseeing a research project on family friendly policies - they have 6 women, no men. I agreed, but havn't heard anything back from them - on this issue, perhaps, they are a bit behind!

As a working mum, I would rather know what odds are stacked against my child than not. The study does not make me feel guilty about my choices but it opens my eyes to possible areas of concern. The report does acknowledge its own limitations and does say that the quality of childcare available when they first started observing has changed.
The report does refer to fathers impact - Tom don't get so stressed. You are definitely a man in need of a jumbo Chunky KitKat.
Anyhow you can all check it out for yourselves. I can't do those cool links but here is the url:

www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/321.htm

Surely though the problem with that particular report is that for reasons already cited, it doesn't give us any meaningful info on how the odds are stacked for the children of working women today.

Tom, no you can't I'VE EATEN IT !!, ha, ha, hasn't improved my mood though. All tips would be gratefully received on how to lift my mood, according to my worse half.

Thanks Bugsy - I noticed that. I think the problem is with the reporting of it - the BBC's report, in particular, puts the whole load on mums.

But Croppy we won't know how the odds are stacked against our kids until they are all 23! All studies are going to be retrospective. The report acknowledges that there are other factors influencing how successful children are going to be but it was not looking at those, it was just focussing on the effects of working parents. Maybe this report will stimulate research into how different types of childcare effect our children too, so that we can make better choices.

My gripw with the study is that it doesn't look at the childcare side of the equation in terms of quality. To my mind it is telling only half the story.

I'm with Libby Purves on this one. Her view is that guilt for working mothers is utterly pointless. If you can afford not to work and doing so makes you feel guilty, then don't. If you can't afford to stop work, there is no point feeling guilty about it as you have no choice.

Funnily enough, the only guilt I feel is over not feeling guilty for working instead of being at home full time with my son!

I don't feel guilty about working, but I do feel frustrated about how difficult it is to balance everything. Still we've already gone into all that elsewhere....

I'm with Bells & Libby too. Despite (or maybe in spite of) a vigourous Catholic upbringing, I have no time for guilt at all. It is the biggest waste of emotion ever.

Well I've decided to cut my "working" week from 4 days to 3. Not because of this report - I'd decided anyway - but because I do on balance agree with its findings. I think my kids will probably be better off with me and just as importantly I'm beginning to think of schools for them and I suddenly realised that before I know it they'll be off doing their own thing and this time is precious. I'm a freelance journalist, so I'm in the incredibly fortunate postition of being able to be flexible (having said that, that's why i opted out of banking and into journalism)which not everyone is but I don't think i could manage full-time motherhood - just think I'd be crap and resentful. Don't really have a point just thought I'd share my thoughts.

And just where were these experts' children while they were doing the research? Probably in childcare while they worked on the research. Or maybe the research was done by men while their partners stayed at home and looked after the kids, drilling into them the importance of A levels while pureeing carrot and potty training and breeding another generation that believe that men work, women look after the kiddies'.

But if you agree with this particualr report's findings Robbibe, wouldn't you be giving up work completely? I understood that it suggested that women who work part time have also have a detrimental impact on their children's prospects.

Personally, I think it is rubbish as without taking a look at the imapct of quality childcare it has severe limitations. We all do what is best for us and our families and each family is unique so I think its impossible to draw blanket conclusions. If I was at home full time I would be very unhappy - how on earth could this be good for me, my husband and most importantly, our children?

According to the report, working part-time effects your child considerably less than working full-time. (6% less chance of getting an a-level to a part-time mum, 12% to a full-time mum) but that's not really the point for me. As I said before I think I'd be a lousy full-time mum and would get v depressed not working at all (which can't be great for your kids). Plus, as Emmam suggests, I don't think I'd be much of a role-model to my daughters. It's more about balance - a bit more time for them, but still a bit of time for work and most importantly a bit more time for me to enjoy them before they start spending all their time in friends bedrooms listening to Spice Girl records.
I suppose when I say I agree with the report's findings what I'm saying is that having mother around a lot when you're a pre-school child is probably good for you, but of course it all depends on how good your childcare is. (Mine is average).

I think most people would agree with the sentiments you've expressed there Robbie. I agree that having a mother around a lot is probably good for young children, just don't like the media's interpretation that not having a mother on hand full time is automatically bad for a child.

Not having a mother on hand full time can be a good thing. My son is cared for by his grandma two days a week and it is wonderful to see the special relationship they have. The remaining three days he goes to a childminder, with other children around. He has developed over the past year from being quite a shy, clingy child into one who now wades in and gets on with things and stands up for himself. He is learning that there are other people in the world he can trust, he's learning that the world doesn't revolve around him and he has wonderful days with interesting people, doing great activities.

From my point of view I get a great deal of satisfaction out of what I do, I too get to meet some interesting people, I have a laugh, the extra money means we are comfortably off and I feel relaxed and ready to play when I get home. Now how can that be bad for a pre-schooler?

Couldn't agree more Emmam.

I heard a statistic this morning that said 75% of mothers now work full or part time, did I hear this correctly? I must admit I was surprised but very pleased, although I do not work I fully support mothers who do full or part time for whatever reason. I would like to go back to work for my sake as I am currently finding life a bit of a strain with two children at home.

One thing that I always remember is that I never had mum waiting at the school gate for me as she had to work, parents had split up. That's one thing I'm determined to do is be there when they are at school.