La herida colonial y la opción descolonial: Mignolo

A number of commentators have endorsed activating lone parents with older children (Deacon 1999, Toynbee 1999, see also Layard and Field quoted in Levitas 1998, more recently Freud 2007 and Stanley and Lohde 2004 and as early as the Commission for Social Justice Report 1994). In addition, the arguments for selecting on the basis of age of child seem compelling: It mirrors the current employment patterns of lone

14 The definition used by Berthoud (2003a) for this analysis differs from that used for the lone parent employment target. Being in employment is defined as working 16 hours or more per week or being in full-time education or training.

15 Alternatively, if the employment target of 70 per cent was met for lone parents by 2010, then the proportion of dual earner couples would need to rise from 57 to 65 per cent and the proportion of unemployed couples fall from five to four per cent (Harker 2006; 13).

parents where the employment rate increases with the age of the youngest child, chimes with public opinion and is the criterion to select lone parents for activation most commonly used in other countries (see Carcillo and Grubb 2006). Furthermore, targeting lone parents with older children has been a feature of other New Labour policies such as the implementation of the New Deal for Lone Parents and the roll-out of Work-Focussed Interviews.

The current Labour government argues that lone parents with older children are able to work, whilst accepting that those with younger and very young children often cannot work. This seems to be referring to child development theories, which have proposed that the development of children may be negatively affected if the primary carer is engaging in paid work whilst they are very young. Child development in this context refers to both the behavioural and the cognitive development of children in the first years of their life. Developmental psychologists argue that children need to form secure, emotional bonds with their primary caregiver, whilst they are very young, in order to be able to form ‘normal’ relationships with others. Neuroscientists meanwhile have focused on the brain development of children and the role of external stimulation (for an introduction to both sets of theories, see Slater and Bremner 2003 and Slater and Muir 2000, and for a discussion of the policy relevance see Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). A full discussion of these two schools of thought is beyond the scope of this thesis. The main contribution of relevance in this context is that mothers are regarded as the key individuals as they tend to be the primary caregiver in most families.

Therefore, the research on the link between child development and maternal employment has tried to address the following questions: when is it harmful to the development of the child if the mother is working, i.e. at what point can she start working, whether there is a difference in child outcomes regarding the number and pattern of the work hours, whether the employment behaviour of fathers has an effect, what role the quality of replacement care is playing and how and when the effect of maternal employment on child development and behaviour can be measured.

The effect of maternal employment on the cognitive and behavioural development of children has been a popular but contentious topic for decades and the subject of many studies, particularly in the United States (for research reviews see amongst others:

Goldberg et al 2008, Gregg et al 2005 and Melhuisch 2004). The reference point for these studies has tended to be maternal employment of mothers in couples before the child is one year old. The majority of recent studies from the US are based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979. However, despite using the same data

source and measurement of cognitive and behavioural development¹⁶, the studies have still arrived at varying results with regards to: the duration of the effects, the differences by gender, race and ethnicity, the number and pattern of hours worked, the employment pattern of the partner, the cognitive ability of the mother, type of childcare used and whether the mother worked in the second and third year of the child’s life (for the most recent studies see Auginhbough and Gittleman 2005, Averett et al 2005, Baum 2004, Berger et al 2008, Berger et al 2005, Han et al 2006, Han 2005, Hill et al 2005, Joshi and Bogen 2007, Ruhm 2004, Waldfogel et al 2002 and for a meta analysis of these and other studies see Goldberg et al 2008)¹⁷. Gregg et al (2005), in their review of the relevant American literature, argued that the variations in the outcomes are due to the different treatment of the control variables.

Nevertheless, in their view there is evidence supporting the proposition that mothers in couples working full-time in the first year of a child’s life, is likely to have negative outcomes for the development of the child, particularly regarding its cognitive development (Gregg et al 2005). Goldberg et al (2008), based on their meta-analysis of the American literature, contended that there are no overall statistically significant links between maternal employment and child development outcomes, per se, though the authors conceded that the following factors tend to have a negative effect on child development, especially if the children were white or boys: working full-time rather than part-time, mothers being from an upper or middle class background, couple families and working when the children are adolescents. In other words, the jury is still out as to whether the development of children is affected in a negative way if mothers (who have a partner) are working during the first year of the child’s life and if true whether this is generally the case or only occurs in particular circumstances.

In terms of the effects of maternal employment on child development with regards to single parents, i.e. those who were lone parents at the birth of their child or soon thereafter, the studies are not conclusive either. However, both Goldberg et al (2008) and Gregg et al (2005) argued that the negative effect of maternal employment for mothers in couples does not hold for lone parents. Potential, though controversial, reasons given for this difference, are that the financial benefit of working is greater for

16 The National Longitudinal Youth Development Survey 1979 uses the Peabody Individual Achievement Test for vocabulary, reading and maths at different ages and the Child Behaviour Check List.

17 Results also differ when other studies are used such as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care (Brooks-Gunn et al 2002, Han 2005 and Huston and Rosenkrantz Aaronson 2005), the Fullerton Longitudinal Study (Gottfried and Gottfried 2006) and the National Survey of American Families (Han 2006).

lone parents than mothers in couples, that they have access to higher quality childcare and that they may themselves not provide high quality investments compared to mothers in couples (Gregg et al 2005). However, studies focussing specifically on lone mothers who were originally on welfare benefits, have suggested that negative cognitive and behavioural outcomes are not driven by employment, per se, but wider factors, such as: income security, job quality and stress levels (Kalil and Dunifon 2007 and Fuller et al 2002).

It is not clear to what extent the findings of the US studies are applicable to the British context, given the different environment in terms of: maternal employment rates and patterns, parental leave policies and childcare provision and funding. Far fewer studies have been carried out in the UK than in the US (Gregg et al 2005 and Melhuisch 2004).

There is some support for maternal employment, either before the child is one year old (and even before it is five), to have a slightly negative effect on the cognitive development of children (see Joshi and Verropolou 2000 based on data from the 1958 National Child Development Study and Ermisch and Francesconi based on data from the British Household Panel study, both in Gregg et al 2005). For example, the results of analysis by the Avon Longitudinal Panel Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)¹⁸ have suggested that full-time work before the child is 18 months old does have a negative effect on its later reading score, in particular for mothers who have formal qualifications and who use mainly informal care (Gregg et al 2005). However, whilst maternal employment when the child is under one year old may have negative effects, not working for the first three years of the child’s life is also likely to have a negative impact on its development (Dex and Ward 2007 based on their analysis of the Millennium Cohort Survey). These findings should be treated with some caution, because other characteristics associated with not being in employment during the early years of the child, may come into play (Dex and Ward 2007).

Most studies have focussed on maternal employment during the first year or the first three years of the child’s life, drawing on theories around social development and brain stimulation, as well as the greater need for physical care for very young children.

However, a number of studies have alluded to the negative effects of parents working while the children are adolescents (see Goldberg 2008 for a review and Baum 2004).

One study, focussing on lone parents of such older children, suggested that negative effects are limited to families where the lone parent experiences phases of job insecurity or unemployment or bad jobs, defined as low paid and without health

18 ALSPAC was a cohort study based on around 12,000 children born in 1991 and 1992 in the Avon area (Gregg et al 2005).

insurance benefits (Kalil and Ziol-Guest 2005). Still, the notion that older children are not affected if the primary caregiver is in employment is being challenged.

The main problems with the theories and research application of the effect of maternal employment on the cognitive and behavioural development of children are threefold.

Firstly, there have been inconsistent results, suggesting a high level of sensitivity to sample and analysis design, thus making it difficult to reach reliable conclusions regarding the effects of maternal employment on child development. Secondly, the difference in employment patterns of mothers with young children in Britain, when compared to the US (see Gregg et al 2005) makes cross-cultural comparisons problematic. Finally, considering the broader horizon, the focus on children has largely led to the neglect of the unequal position of women in terms of their dual role as carers and workers in this new framework (Lister 2005) as well as their preferences, motivations and autonomy. Thus, there is some doubt that significant improvement for children can be achieved without focussing on the circumstances of mothers within the family (Millar and Ridge 2002).

In summary, despite the problems with measuring the effect of maternal employment on child outcomes, there would appear to be some consensus that full-time maternal employment in the first year of life tends to have a negative effect on the development of children, though this being mediated by the educational qualifications of the mothers and the quality of replacement care. However, this does not seem to hold for lone parents.

Targeting lone parents by the age of their youngest child has been a feature throughout the welfare-to-work policies of this government. NDLP was initially designed for lone parents with school aged children only. Moreover, the frequency of work-focussed­

interviews increases with the age of the youngest child and varies depending on the existence and type of additional programmes in local areas.