Working mothers have been misrepresented yet again by the media, believes Dr Tony Munton
Last week's 'Panorama' programme, entitled 'Back to the Kitchen Sink', highlighted the dilemmas facing countless working families. The point that many employers are unwilling to adopt real family-friendly policies was well made. Unfortunately, instead of taking a balanced view of the issues, programme maker Sarah Powell couldn't resist trying to convince us, yet again, how mothers are damaging their children's future by going out to work during their early years.
Of course, we've seen it all before in Ms Powell's previous 'Panorama' programmes: damaged kids, guilty mums, and a bit of research thrown in to justify the whole thing. Last time, childcare researchers contacted by the BBC complained that their work had been misrepresented. This time, the production team contacted us here at the Thomas Coram Research Unit for the latest evidence.
We have recently written three reviews of childcare research, so we were well placed to provide up-to-date information. The fact is that there is no good evidence to support the stance that children suffer ill-effects from experiences in good quality non-parental care. We told the 'Panorama' team as much. A few weeks later they contacted us again. They had evidence, they said, which proved children whose mothers went out to work when they were very young did worse on tests of academic ability when they were older. In fact, they said, this proved children of working mothers were less likely to get 'A' levels than those whose mothers had stayed home.
The research in question had been done by Professor Heather Joshi at London's Institute of Education. The work had been funded through MP Harriet Harman. She was looking for evidence to persuade the Government to provide more generous maternity and parental leave. We knew all about the study from writing our review. We were able to point out that Professor Joshi was not making the same claims for her own work. In fact, out of all the tests given to children, only one showed any difference. That was a reading test. And the size of the difference? Children whose mothers went out to work when they were very young scored 2 per cent worse. Hardly proof of lasting damage.
The other thing we pointed out was that Professor Joshi's study did not ask the mothers what kind of care they used for their children. If the mothers in her study were typical, most would have left their children with close relatives while they went out to work. The 'Panorama' programme failed to note that. In fact, it deliberately created the impression that typically children were left in nurseries from dawn to dusk.
To help out, we gave the 'Panorama' team details of a couple of recent studies that collected much more detailed information. Both studies asked about the type and quality of care. They also followed groups of the same children over several years.
The first was the respected National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study, conducted in the US. It found that young children did best when mothers were able to follow their employment choices. In other words, children of working mothers who wanted to work did just as well as the children of those who preferred to stay at home and were able to do just that.
The second study followed a large group of children in New Zealand. Researchers found no direct link between employment patterns of mothers of infants, and adolescent academic achievement. In fact, the researchers said that they, like many other experts, felt it was almost impossible to link school achievement with something so far in the past as mothers' employment during the first years of life.
We gave the BBC production team references and quotes from both studies, but they decided not to mention either in the programme. Instead, they preferred to create a scare story. Weeping mums, children falling asleep before they got their coats off, and Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors predicting the end of jobs for women if the Government forced employers to adopt family-friendly policies. (I wonder if some predecessor of Ms Lea's predicted the end of civilisation as a result of sweeps being banned from sending little boys up chimneys).
Of course, the Government should provide adequate, paid parental leave. Of course, employers should adopt family- friendly policies. But when will the media realise that for many women, going back to work while their children are young is not a matter of choice? When will they accept that bringing up children is not the sole responsibility of women? The real questions are: How do we go about creating high-quality, accessible, affordable childcare that meets the needs of the majority of families for whom work is a necessity, and how do we persuade employers that family-friendly policies are vital to our economic and social well-being?
It is a shame that a respected programme like Panorama should be caught out yet again. Sarah Powell seems determined to harass working mums no matter what the evidence.
