A commentator on breakfast news this morning remarked that the following Observer story would delight conservative traditionalists. The reason? A wide-ranging survey has concluded that children brought up by their mothers do better in all the important indicators than children brought up by any other method - including by relatives. These findings lend support to the idea that mothers ‘ought’ to stay at home to raise their children while the father (assuming there is one present) goes out to work.
So, as a conservative traditionalist who shares the intention with his wife to have the children raised by their stay-at-home mum why does this news leave me feeling deflated rather than elated?
There are two reasons. First, the fact that studies are required to even demonstrate that traditional home set-ups are best for raising children illustrates just how disconnected we as a society have become from our natural selves and our instincts. While I fully understand that sometimes the mother not working is not an option it’s saddening that we have bred a culture of denial in order that militant individualism - ‘what I want is the only right thing’ - can triumph over the care and nurturing of our children.
My second reason for deflation - leading possibly to out and out misery - is that, short of the god I don’t even believe in coming down and telling Labour that traditional married family is the most advantageous method by far of raising balanced, contented children I don’t think Labour will change a single aspect of their attitude towards such family set-ups. Blair would probably tell god it’s all a matter of how you look at things. Or he’ll produce a dossier telling the big G he’s actually wrong…
Anyway, here’s the low-down, courtesy of The Observer:
One of the longest and most detailed studies of UK childcare has concluded that young children who are looked after by their mothers do significantly better in developmental tests than those cared for in nurseries, by childminders or relatives.
It found babies and toddlers fared worst when they were given group nursery care. Those cared for by friends or grandparents or other relatives did a little better while those looked after by nannies or childminders were rated second only to those cared for by mothers.
According to Penelope Leach, a leading British childcare expert and one of the study’s authors, the social and emotional development of children cared for by someone other than their mother ‘is definitely less good’.
Such children tend to show higher levels of aggression or are inclined to become more withdrawn, compliant and sad. Tests included the ability to do a series of set tasks and the level of eye-contact maintained with adults.
I was most intrigued that care by relatives wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be:
‘Mothers also often wanted their own mother as the carer because they say “she’s family, she loves the baby”,’ she said. ‘But love doesn’t necessarily produce the best childcare. That takes planning and thinking about the child and his or her activities.’
Where there’s rules, there are exceptions:
Leach said the study indicates that not all babies and toddlers do well at home. Children of mothers suffering depression or having other priorities than motherhood fared better with childminders and nurseries. ‘Mummy care isn’t necessarily the gold standard,’ said Leach.
So there we have it - a few more findings supporting what we all pretty much already knew - findings which will, I believe, be completely and totally ignored.
