Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Working mothers risk damaging

their child's prospects


by STEVE DOUGHTY, Daily Mail
The findings from the Institute for Social and Economic Research revealed
that mothers who return to work after their baby is born risk causing serious
damage to the child's prospects in later life.
Such children are more likely to do worse at school, become unemployed
and to suffer mental stress than youngsters whose mothers stay at home to
bring them up.
According to the study, the impact of having a full-time working mother on a
child's education is similar to growing up in a single-parent family. If a
mother returns to work, say the researchers, the child is 20 per-cent less
likely to get an A-level.
The research, published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, followed the
lives of 1,263 young people across all social groups who were born in the
1970s.
Researchers attempted to allow for other factors such as income, the
parents' education and family break-up, and made comparisons of the
performance of brothers and sisters.
It found that the children between one and five whose mothers worked for
the longest periods tended to have lower educational attainment, greater
risk of unemployment as a young adult, and a greater risk of psychological
distress.
The findings showed that the average mother during the 1970s and early
1980s worked for 18 months full-time before her child was five.
Nearly two thirds of their children, 64 per cent, achieved at least one A-level
or equivalent qualification.
However, among mothers who worked for a longer period - 30 months and
over before their child was five - only 52 per cent of the children achieved
one A-level pass.
The likelihood of unemployment rose from seven to nine per cent for those
whose mothers had worked full-time, and the chance of psychological
stress went up from 23 per cent to 28 per cent.
Part-time work had much less damaging effects on children. The child's
chance of passing an A-level fell by six per cent, but there was no evidence
of other harm.
Fathers who worked full-time had a similar impact on their children's
development to mothers who worked part-time. But their children were less
likely than others to be unemployed later in life and less likely to show signs
of mental distress.

If you guessed the answer might be 12 weeks (not an unreasonable assumption, since
thats the amount of time allotted by our national family leave law), youd be sadly
mistaken. According to recently released census numbers, a majority of mothers who
worked during pregnancy go back before that, some way before. More than a quarter are
at work within two months of giving birth and one in 10more than half a million
women each yeargo back to their jobs in four weeks or less.
Lets take a moment to think about whats going on just four weeks after birth. Babies
havent even cracked their first real smiles yet. Mothers are still physically recovering
from birth, particularly if theyve had C-sections. Theyre both probably getting up
several times during the night to nurse. In fact, theyve barely begun whats supposed to
be half a year of exclusive breast-feeding, according to the American Academy of
Pediatrics.
Yet going back to work in such a short amount of time isnt just tiring or unpleasant, new
research demonstrates that its bad for both women and children. We now have enough
evidence to blame the short amounts of time mothers have with new borns for
developmental delays, sickness, and even death. (I say mothers because, while most leave
laws apply to men and women, women are far more likely than men to take time off and,
thus, are the subjects of most research.)
Advertisement
how much time would actually be optimal? Some of the results are surprising. For one
thing, there is some evidence that very long leaves have an economic and professional
downside for women, and at best a neutral effect on children. By looking to Europe,
which has meticulous data collection practices and a history of paid leave stretching back
to the 19th century, researchers have been getting a better and better handle on the extent
to which varying amounts of paid leave can save kids lives. Two studies, one published
in the Economic Journal in 2005 and another five years earlier, examined the results of
the steady climb in paid leave in 16 European countries, starting in 1969. By charting
death rates against those historical changes, while controlling for health care spending,
health insurance, and wealth, the authors were able to attribute a 20 percent dip in infant
deaths to a 10-week extension in paid leave. The biggest drop was in deaths of babies
between 2 and 12 months, but deaths between 1 and 5 years also went down as paid leave
went up. So what was the optimal amount of time off, according to all this research?
According to Christopher Ruhm, the author of the first European study, paid leave of
about 40 weeks saved the most lives. (After that point, according to Ruhm, there may
even be some partial reversal of those gains.)
Here in the United States, the few paid leave programs we have may be too small to make
much of a difference, as the authors of a study published this month suggested after being
unable to find any impact of state leave policies on childrens health. Efforts to study paid
leave in this country are further complicated by the fact that those American parents who
do get paid time off often tend to be lucky in other ways, too. That recent census report
shows that only 18 percent of mothers with less than a high school education got paid
time off compared with 66 percent of women with at least a bachelor's degree. This
makes it hard to know whether differences between American families in which a parent
was able to stay home and families in which the mother went right back to work might
instead be attributable to poverty, education, or other factors.
Turning our eyes back to Europe, there is evidence that leaveeven when its shorter
than that apparently ideal 40-week span identified by Ruhmhas not just health effects
but measurable developmental and behavioral benefits, too. One study tracked Norwegian
children who were born after 1977, when that country increased its paid leave from zero
to four months and its unpaid leave from three to 12 months, and found that the kids born
after the change had lower high school dropout rates. Military draft data, moreover, tied
lengthened leaves to increases in male IQ (and height, too).
Its not entirely clear why having parents around would help babies grow taller or
smarter, or live long longer, but the research points to a few potential advantages to kids
whose mothers stay home for at least three months. In another study published in
the Economic Journal in 2005, American babies whose mothers were back at work within
12 weeks were less likely to get doctors visits and immunizations and be breast-fed. All
this makes intuitive sense, of course: Checkups can help diagnose and treat illnesses, but
they are hard to schedule when youre working. And while exclusive breast-feeding for at
least six months has been shown to prevent respiratory infections, bacterial meningitis,
and other illnesses, going back to work can make it difficult if not impossible.
In the developmental realm, the benefits of leave may be trickier to explain. That
2005 Economic Journal study of American women who returned to work within 12
weeks showed that infants whose mothers went back even earlier were likely to have
more behavioral problems and lower cognitive test scores at age 4. The authors
speculated that the difference might have stemmed from the superior care babies receive
from parents, as opposed to other caregivers. It might also have something to do with
attunement, the crucial developmental process through which parent and new born adjust
to each other.
But what about those parentsmost of whom are mothers? What do we know about what
the ideal length of leave time might be for them? In terms of American mothers mental
health, the best answer for now may be simply: more. Numerous studies have tied the
lack of time off to depression in working mothers. Conversely, a 2004 study found that an
increase of just one week of time off decreased the number and frequency of symptoms of
depression in American mothers.
Its easy to understand why an American woman going back to work just four, eight, or
even 12 weeks after birth might get depressedespecially if she looks to Europe, where
at least six months of paid leave is the norm and several countries grant more than three
years.
Maybe we American women can cheer ourselves with the several recent studies that have
failed to find benefits of such very long leaves. It turns out that the increase from 12 to 15
months of paid leavewhich Sweden made back in 1988doesnt have a dramatic
effect on kids. There is even some evidence that laws granting more than a year and a half
off paid can hinder womens professional achievement. It may be cold comfort, but at
least this is one problem that we American mothers, facing the prospect of caring for new
babies while somehow holding onto our jobs, just dont have.

When to Go Back to Work After Having a Baby
It's one of the toughest decisions every new mom faces. Some factors to consider before
returning to work.
Figuring out when or if you should go back to work can be a new mom's toughest decision.
It's easy to get overwhelmed with all the factors you have to consider: What's best for the baby?
What's best for you? Can you afford to stay home? Will your career take a nosedive if you do?
Who will care for your baby if you don't?
One way to navigate this difficult dilemma is to break the decision into manageable bites. Ask
yourself a few key questions in each of the following realms. Remember, there are no right or
wrong answers. The purpose is to help you figure out where you stand on the big issues, so
you'll be a step closer to determining what's right for you.
Emotionally, how will you feel about being away from your baby? (You might not know until
you do it and that's okay.) How comfortable are you with the idea of someone else caring for
her? How important is it to keep your career on track? Can you live without the unique
fulfillment that a career brings, or is it too important a part of who you are? How will you feel
about missing any of the major milestones in your baby's life first words, first steps?
Logistically, if you do choose to go back to work, will you put your little one in daycare or hire
a nanny? Is there a relative who can tend her? Or is your partner willing (and able) to take over
the reins? How many hours are you willing to work? Even if you're not headed back right away,
it's a good idea to think now about what type of arrangement would work best for you. If you
can't come up with a scenario that will allow you to comfortably leave the home, your choice
might be not to.
Financially, staying at home (even part-time) isn't an option for many mothers; they simply
must work. To find out if you can afford to quit or reduce your hours, make a budget. List how
much you require for fixed expenses mortgage or rent, insurance, loan payments, utilities,
food, etc. and how much you need for extras like dinners out. Now determine how much
money you absolutely must have to be modestly comfortable (with a cushion for emergencies).
Consider whether the money you'll make will offset the costs of earning it (gas, clothing,
childcare, lunches and time away from your baby). Are there options to cut your time away
from home like working part time, or full or part time from home, or job sharing?


Babies don't suffer when mothers return to work, study
reveals
Findings overturn earlier research on working mothers
Gains of being in employment outweigh disadvantages

A ground-breaking study has found that mothers can go back to work months
after the birth of their child without the baby's wellbeing suffering as a result.
By assessing the total impact on a child of the mother going out to work,
including factors outside the home, American academics claim to have
produced the first full picture of the effect of maternal employment on child
cognitive and social development. Their conclusion will provide comfort for
thousands of women who re-enter the employment market within a year of
giving birth.
"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American
academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School
of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always
asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the
effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay
constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.
"Family relationships, family income, the mental health of the mother all
change when a mother is working and so what we did was to look at the full
impact, taking all of these things into account."
In one of the most fraught areas of social policy and research, several studies
over the past two decades have suggested that children do worse if their
mothers go back to work in the first year of their lives.
Recent research by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex
University found that children of mothers who went back to work within the first
three years were slower learners, and a 2008 Unicef study recommended that
mothers stay at home for the first 12 months or "gamble" with their children's
development. The Pew Research Centre in Washington found high levels of
anxiety among women over the issue.
The new study, led by New York's Columbia University School of Social
Work, was published last week by the Society for Research in Child
Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Study of Early Child Care followed more than 1,000 children from 10
geographic areas aged up to seven, tracking their development and family
characteristics.
It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their
child's first year, there were also significant advantages an increase in
mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive
high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said,
the net effect was neutral.
"The effect of the parenting itself is the key factor," said Waldfogel. "It is hugely
important how sensitive you are to your child's needs. Even for women who
have to work more than 30 hours a week, they can make things better for
themselves, they just need to take a deep breath on the doorstep, dump all the
office worries behind them and go in the door prepared to pay attention to all
their children's cues. This is good news for all mothers.
"I'm actually delighted to have been able to disprove earlier studies. We just
had to ask some different questions and this approach of looking at the whole
picture is definitely the right question to be looking at.
"This is especially good news for US mothers, who typically go back to work
after three months because of the lack of maternity leave, but it equally will
apply to the typical British family."
Waldfogel added that part-time work, up to 30 hours a week, provides more
desirable outcomes than full-time employment. The authors attribute their
striking findings to the rich data used in the study, detailing parent-child
interactions, income and childcare. They also used an analytic method that
allowed them to calculate the total effect of maternal employment taking into
account all knock-on effects.
Parents and campaigners welcomed the findings. Siobhan Freegard, co-
founder of the parenting website Netmums, said the results would be
embraced by every working mother, and pointed out that many women had no
choice but to work and their attitude was often "we are doing our best".
Sally Gimson, director of communications at the Family and Parenting
Institute, said the quality of childcare was crucial. "Women should not feel
guilty whatever choices they make and that does not mean you have to
make the choice to work. Often it is the more well-off women who have the
choice, while many others have to work," Gimson said.
Sam Willoughby, 37, wanted to go back to her job at a financial services
company part-time after having her daughter, Alice. "But they were incredibly
inflexible," she said. She decided not to return and now
runsmumandworking.co.uk, which aims to help mothers find flexible options,
both full- and part-time. "So many things make working mothers feel awful, but
the reality is, as this study shows, that going back to work is acceptable.
"There is a notion that mothers should spend all their time with their children
but that is wrong. You need to also do things that are just for you. And a
career can give you that."
Julie Wilson, 43, returned to work full time when her first son, James, was six
months old. "We had a really good nursery nearby and it was absolutely fine. I
really enjoyed my job and never considered changing my hours. I don't feel he
missed me he was happy at nursery. He was occupied all the time Later
on it was really educational."
When her second son, Ben, was born, she returned to work again, but went
part-time. Wilson, who now works as a freelance, thinks the decision to work
had no negative impact on the boys, now 12 and eight. "Looking at James
now, he is a very rounded individual."
Most studies focus on the trade-off between the potential positive effects of
increased income earned by the mother and the negative effect of the
decrease in time available for childcare
Mother is primary care giver to the children. Maternal employment may have a
negative effect on womens time, which, in turn, might limit her ability to
provide adequate care.

the services provided at day care might affect the level of care provided at
home. For instance, the food offered to children in day care might cause
parents to offer less (or lower quality) foods to children at home (i.e.
substitution). Day care might have similar effects on the level of hygiene,
sanitation and child stimulation provided at home. For instance, parents may
consider the amount of stimulation their children receive in day care to be
sufficient and hence reduce or even stop engaging in these types of activities
at home.
The earliest years of life are pivotal to forming the foundations for healthy
development and providing children and their societies with the opportunity to
reach their full potential. However, many children in developing countries are
not able to develop to their full potential because of serious deficits in health,
nutrition and proper cognitive and non-cognitive stimulation. The effects of
delayed development in the early years can be deleterious and long lasting,
reinforcing the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Early childhood
development programmes are seen as a promising way to prevent such
delays and foster early development. While there is a growing evidence base
on the effects of early childhood development programmes in the United
States, Latin America and elsewhere, there is little evidence of the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such programmes in the African
context.
Inadequate health and nutrition, cultural practices that limit communication
between parents and children and other learning opportunities may all
contribute towards inadequate physical and cognitive growth, particularly in
the early periods of physical and brain development. As a result, children
arrive at school ill prepared for a new learning and social environment
low levels of child development are associated with increased reliance on the
babysitters or day care.

child development, including measures of cognitive ability (including problem-
solving skills, memory and early maths skills), gross motor skills (e.g., running,
jumping), fine motor skills (e.g., picking up objects, holding a pencil), language
and communication (e.g., production and understanding of words, ability to
identify letters), socio-emotional development (e.g., getting along with peers
and adults, following directions and cooperating, capacity to regulate emotions
positively in stressful situations) and health (including growth and prevalence
of morbidity)
Abilities are multiple in nature and they include perseverance, motivation, self-
control, self-esteem, risk aversion, patience and time preferences, for
example. All these traits have genetic components but they are susceptible to
environmental influences. Parents and primary caregivers play a key role in
influencing children at an early age, while additional influences (e.g., extended
family, peers, teachers and others) progressively play an increasing role as
children grow older.

the human skill formation process is driven by a multistage technology. Each
stage corresponds to a different period in the lifecycle of the child.
Technologies can be different according to the life period of the child. Different
skills can be more productively developed at certain stages, generating
sensitive and critical periods for the development of each skill. Stages in which
a child may be more productive in developing certain skills are called sensitive
periods. Other abilities can only be developed at critical periods of life. Skills
are self reinforcing. Abilities acquired in one period persist to later stages. This
is termed the self productivity of skill formation. Skills acquired in one
dimension make it easier to acquire skills in other dimensions. In other words,
development in one domain often acts as a catalyst for development in
another. For example, after learning to walk, children are faced with new
demands on self-control, as parents are more likely to restrict their behaviour
and to say no (Fernald et al., 2009). In this example, a childs development in
the gross motor domain triggers the need for him/her to develop new socio-
emotional skills. Skill formation is also complementaryskills produced in one
stage increase the productivity of investments in subsequent stages. Together,
self-productivity and complementarities produce multiplier effects in abilities
formation.

ability gapscognitive and non-cognitivebetween individuals and socio-
economic groups develop very early on.

Another key consequence of self-productivity and complementary, and of the
fact that the technology of human capital accumulation has both sensitive and
critical periods for development, is that when a child is disadvantaged in the
early years of life, later investments (e.g., in primary education) may have a
diminished effect.
There are two types of investments (i.e., during early childhood and after) are
complementary and that investments early in life give children the strong
foundation that will make further investments more efficient.

Taken together, the various streams of literature summarised above all concur
that failure to invest in early childhood is costly and difficult to compensate for
later in life. Yet, poor and otherwise disadvantaged children are the least likely
to reach their development potential during this important first period of life
because they are often exposed to the cumulative effects of multiple risk
factors, including less responsive parenting, less stimulating environments,
higher incidence of maternal depression and stress, lack of access to
adequate nutrition, higher incidence of intra-household violence, poor housing,
dangerous neighbourhoods and pollution among others (Walker et al., 2011).
As a result, compared with others, poor and otherwise disadvantaged children
are less likely to enrol in primary school at the right age, more likely to attain
lower achievement levels or grades for their age and more likely to have
poorer cognitive abilities throughout their lives (Vegas & Santibanez, 2010).

the cognitive (numeracy, working memory), linguistic (receptive language, use
of gestures, sounds and movements), psychosocial and behavioural (personal
and social) and physical (fine and gross motor skills, health and nutrition)
domains.

the child psychologist and Guardian columnist Oliver James, use the evidence
to consolidate a strongly held belief that nursery care is not appropriate. His
position on putting small babies into daycare is clear. "My advice would be:
Don't do it."
There is no evidence that daycare is advantageous to children from middle-
class families," he writes in his most recent book, How Not To F*** Them Up,
"and there is considerable evidence that it increases the risk of dysregulated
cortisol levels, aggression, disobedience and emotional insecurity, especially if
the care is of low quality. Unfortunately, this latter is the norm in the US and
the UK."
He continues: "There is now overwhelming evidence that daycare causes
children to have abnormal cortisol levels, probably increasing the risk of
behavioural problems like aggression, fearfulness and hyperactivity."











Sue Gerhardt, the author of Why Love Matters and The Selfish Society, also
writes about the effects of cortisol, but is critical of nursery care for broader
reasons. She sees them as concepts favoured by parents, for their
convenience, reliability and cost, but not geared towards the needs of children.
"I have a lot of clients who say that they are putting their baby into nursery
because it needs stimulation, and actually that is just not true," she says.
"What babies need is to make an attachment to particular people and they
need someone to help them manage their emotions and their feelings and
their bodies and how to cope with stress and how to manage themselves. All
of this is about being with a responsible person someone who soothes when
you need soothing, who plays when you need it.

"What happens at nurseries is you have the kind of relationship that you have
at a party. You meet someone, you do small talk, you might find it pleasant or
it might not be. That person isn't really tuned into you. Then you move on to
the next person. It is not really a relationship where someone is tuned into you.
At nurseries, the turnover is so great that it is very difficult to achieve that kind
of relationship," she says.

"More and more people are being given the idea that nurseries are fine for
children of any age and that is not the case. It's just about money and
convenience.

Penelope J. Leach is a British psychologist who writes extensively on
parenting issues from a child development perspective. Penelope Leach's
work on childcare has been read by parents for decades. She says
"What I am more concerned about is the first year. We know from attachment
theory that if children don't have an opportunity to attach with someone and
trust them, then it's a disaster."
Children face several cognitive and behavioural effects that are the result of
maternal employment during their early developmental years

Throughout history women have been regarded as the weaker gender, both
physically and intellectually. As a result womens roles tended to centre
around the home and raising children. Over time women have gradually
entered the workforce and have gained increasingly prestigious positions. With
more women currently in the workforce than ever before.
Children with working mothers are usually placed in group childcare, which
results in them receiving less one-on-one attention and instruction. This may
have significant cognitive effects later in childhood. Behavioural effects may
also arise. A longitudinal study completed in 2001 found significant cognitive
differences between children who had working mothers and children who had
stay-at-home mothers. The study examined the effect of maternal employment
early in a childs life on the childs behavioural and cognitive outcomes during
elementary school. The researchers found that maternal employment in the
first year of a childs life had a negative effect on cognitive outcomes for the
child by age three or four. These cognitive effects could still be seen by age
seven or eight. Interestingly, the amount of time that mothers worked did not
appear to affect cognitive outcomes, as no differences were found in children
of mothers working part-time compared with mothers working full-time. The
researchers also found a correlation between mothers working during a childs
first year of life and behavioural problems by the child later in childhood (Han,
Waldfogel, and Brooks-Gunn).


The following guidelines are presented in order to promote
social development and educational progress of children and to reduce
the side-effects of having working mothers:

1) Considering the phenomenon of "Attachment" and the child's special
need for a mother in the first two years of its life, we suggest that mothers
do not go to work, if possible, especially in the first year The lack of
attachment to one or more close persons in the first years would affect a
child's ability to get close to other people later during adulthood.

2) We suggest mothers avoid full-time employment and consider part-
time employment schemes.

3) Considering the fact that a mother's satisfaction with her job, is an
important factor in family relations and emotional atmosphere, it is
deemed crucial that mothers avoid jobs to which they are not attracted or
those which do not give them job satisfaction.

4) In those households where mothers are working outside the house, it is
crucial that fathers take a greater share in the household responsibilities
and child-care.

Employment was associated with negative child outcomes, however, when
children were from intact, middle class families that were not at risk financially.
In those families, early full-time employment (relative to mothers who were not
working outside the home) was associated with later risk for child behavioural
difficulties.

It should be noted, however, that this increased risk was not the case when
mothers worked full-time when their children were toddlers or pre-schoolers. It
appears that working full-time when the child is an infant a critical period in
terms of attachment and emotional and cognitive growth is more likely to be
associated with subsequent difficulties.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi