Active mums have active children

Sometimes I wonder how on earth people managed to get their research funded because it seems so obvious what the answer will be. Today's gem is that active mothers have more active children. But it also comments that for many women, they become less active after having children, and that in modern life there are many competing priorities for time. There is so much evidence that activity, exercise, being out of doors, experiencing more of nature etc are good for children, and I find it a sad paradox that in contrast, modern society seems to want to pull us away from such priorities. I'm glad that as an active home schooling parent that my whole family get to enjoy time together being active!

Importance of Play in Learning

One big reason that people choose to home educate is to allow children the freedom to learn naturally, and increasing amounts of evidence show that 'play' is an essential tool to develop many skills. This article is comprehensive and well-written. I hope it encourages you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/give-childhood-back-to-children-if-we-want-our-offspring-to-have-happy-productive-and-moral-lives-we-must-allow-more-time-for-play-not-less-are-you-listening-gove-9054433.html

Nature Deficit Disorder

I've been reading a report by the National Trust on a phenomenon which they have termed Nature Deficit Disorder. I found it compelling reading; much of what is said there supports some of the conclusions I have developed since having children. It summarises some of the root causes of the problem - exaggerated fears among parents (both of road accidents, other injuries and of 'stranger danger'); the increasing amount of time spent in front of screens (the statistics on how much television and computer time the average UK child and teenager spends continue to shock me); the hectic pace of life which results in less time spent at 'leisure'.

Of particular interest here is the discussion about how children who are freed from their desks learn better in four specific ways:

1) Cognitive impacts (greater knowledge and understanding)
2) Affective impacts (attitudes, values, beliefs and self-perceptions)
3) Interpersonal and social impacts (communication skills, leadership and teamwork)
4) Physical and behavioural impacts (fitness, personal behaviours and social actions).

'So, children who learn outdoors know more, understand more, feel better, behave better, work more co-operativel and are physically healthier. Importantly, this is not just for able and motivated pupils: under-achievers also do better in a natural environment, especially when exposed to high quality, stimulating activities'.

Further barriers and potential solutions are discussed.

Consider the report. Are there any simple changes you can make which will allow your children more time outside to explore, and to harness all the benefits of increased contact with nature?

Short-term effects of television on 4 year olds

I have been thinking about the claims of some teenagers and young adults I know, who are adamant that they are able to concentrate fully whilst recieving multiple different sensory inputs at one time. For example, a teenager who claims they can write their homework history essay at the same time as watching a DVD, having a text conversation with a friend and also watching occasional you-tube videos. I was looking for scientific evidence regarding whether this can truly be possible - for example, have their neural circuits developed differently through being exposed to multi-media input from an early age?

I was not able to find anything convincing; in fact the converse is true. Here is a paper which might interest readers of this blog, examining the effects of nine minutes television viewing on measures of attention and concentration in four year olds. Sixty children were randomised to one of three conditions: 9 minutes 'stimulating television', where there was a lot of action, a lot of changes in screenshots, a lot of excitement (although the paper does not name the programme used, other sources suggest it may have been Spongebob Squarepants!). The second condition was 9 minutes 'educational television', namely a documentary following the normal life of an American boy. The 'control' condition was being allowed to draw and colour freely with crayons for 9 minutes. Four well established tests of attention and concentration were then applied by investigators who had been blinded to the conditions to which the child had just been exposed.

For each test of attention and concentration, there was a clear deterioration among the children who had been exposed to the stimulating programme, and slight evidence towards a beneficial effect of drawing. The documentary seemed to cause neutral effects.

What I found remarkable was that this was not a paper examining the long term effects of watching large amounts of television, but rather the short term effects of a short period of viewing. It made me once again thankful that we keep viewing to a minimum - I've posted a bit more about this recently.

News article: Children benefit from paternal involvement

I keep an eye on news articles relating to family life and education, and this was one from the BBC several days ago, regarding the role of fathers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18900474

The article reports a study showing that children whose father’s interact well with them at three months of age have better behaviour at 12 months. (It should be commented that this is based on a questionnaire regarding elements of behaviour such as sleep, feeding etc; it is susceptible to bias since what one parent considers a problem, another may view as completely normal. Also, I know I find the more challenging elements of parenting are greatly alleviated through having a supportive and involved husband; I often reflect on how a single parent must feel the task is relentless at times, and through exhaustion and isolation may cope less well with certain behaviours).

What astonishes me is firstly that such studies can attract research funding in the first place, and secondly, that the findings are considered newsworthy. Why is it surprising that children with fathers who interact with them and who take an interest in their development tend to do better? Why do we need to fund research to demonstrate that children need two parents who have complementary roles, in order to have the best chance of thriving? I find it sad that it is necessary.

On the other hand, perhaps I should not be surprised. How often is it assumed that things relating to raising children are the domain of the mother? Even within Christian circles where marriage is highly valued, it is frequently the mother who tends to assume responsibility for the children. One of the most frequently cited sections of the Bible relating to parenting, Ephesians 6 verse 4, is addressed to fathers, ‘And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord’. Elsewhere it is made clear that the God given order for family life is for the husband and father to have a position of headship in the home. ‘Feminists’ react strongly to this suggestion, and object to the verses such as Ephesians 5 verse 22: ‘Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord’. But what they neglect is the parallel command to husbands, three verses later: ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her...’? What does that second verse mean? How did Christ love the church? Christ loved the church sufficiently to face every manner of human abuse and ultimately die for people who at that time, rejected and hate Him. As Jesus Himself said, ‘Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends’. (John 15:13). Given the choice – to submit to my husband’s God-given leadership, or to love another person to the degree that Christ loved the church – I know which seems humanly possible! What does submit mean anyway? I caused controversy among some family members at our wedding when I chose not to say ‘obey’ as is tradition in the Scottish wedding vows, but rather ‘submit’ as I felt this to be more biblically correct. Dictionary definitions of the two verbs are below, with the main difference to me being that submission is a willing surrender, and reflects an respectful attitude of heart, whereas obedience just refers to doing the will of another person.

Obey: 1. To carry out or fulfill the command, order, or instruction of. 2. To carry out or comply with (a command, for example).

Submit: 1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. 2. To subject to a condition or process.

But perhaps I digress slightly into a discussion of Biblical marriage. Or is it really a digression? It seems clear that many problems arise in modern society as the family structure degenerates and many children are raised in broken homes, perhaps where a succession of other adults come for a time and then leave. Is it surprising that these children may struggle to feel secure, and may find ways (often interpreted as ‘rebellion’ or ‘behavioural problems’) to express their uncertainty?

Of course, practically, it often does make sense for one parent to have the greatest day to day involvement with the children, and the more typical or traditional situation is where the mother remains home, or works part time, whilst the husband works longer and more demanding hours. It is not a question of time spent with the child, but rather the degree of involvement and commitment, and the ultimate responsibility. And alternative approaches are possible; I would love to see more families seriously consider these. My husband and I both work part-time, allowing us each to spend quality time with the children and have an equal, although very different, input into their education. When I say ‘different’, I refer not to our motivations and principles, but rather to the different strengths and weaknesses we both have. We believe our children will benefit from the broader education that we can offer them as a team working in this way. We are considered a little unusual, both in the workplace, and also within the church. But we remember that ultimately we are the ones who will have to give an account before God of how we have raised the children He has given us.

Research: Stay at home mums more anxious and depressed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9381449/Stay-at-home-mothers-more-unhappy-than-those-who-work.html

The above link is to an article in the Telegraph, referring to a study involving 181 mothers of children under 5. It is worth noting that the methodology was an online questionnaire, and that it will have been a self-selecting population (ie those who agree to participate in such a study may reflect those with particularly strong views in one direction or other, so introducing bias).

Additionally, the questions were quite closed, and potentially emotive in nature. For example, 'Parenting is more difficult than working' - how would you answer that? There are days when I would say yes, there are others when I would strongly disagree. It depends on the day you have had at home, and perhaps the circumstances you may have faced whilst working outside the home. And how do you define 'difficult'? Difficult in what way? Mentally taxing? Physically exhausting? Socially isolating? I could criticise other questions in like manner.

I also wonder about some of views communicated more subtly - such as that women may consider the children 'sacred'. Such an extreme term suggests idolatry - that you are elevating your child to the position of a God. It would be no wonder that such parenting is destined to cause stress and constant feelings of failure! But other statements - such as a mother being willing to sacrifice elements of her own health and wellbeing for her children - isn't that part of what parenting is about? This current world seems to want to 'have it all', to have easy results without any real cost. Life is not like that. Having a family is certainly not like that! If people enter into parenthood expecting it to be constantly fulfulling, constantly rewarding, challenging but never really stressful, and not requiring some degree of personal sacrifice, then it does not surprise me that they find themselves weary, disillusioned and possibly slightly depressed after several years. Parenting IS a great challenge, and I wonder whether parents could sometimes simply benefit from others reassuring them that there are some days which are easier and more obviously rewarding than others, and that there will be times when it can simply be tough.

I'd love to know what other readers think about this!

National Home Education Research Institute

I find it both interesting and encouraging to read research relating to home education. Statistically, children who are home educated perform well both academically and socially; have high rates of acceptance into and success at further and higher education; and almost universally go on to become productive members of society. It can be difficult to pinpoint exactly which aspect of home education is responsible for this; critics would argue that any child who has interested and involved parents will have similar outcomes. I don't think the precise breakdown of causation is important, but rather that we should be encouraged that home education as a lifestyle is scientifically proven to be of benefit in many realms of life.

Additionally, a personal comment relates to how 'success ' is defined. What is the most important goal for our children? Is it simply to achieve well academically, socially, in extra-curricular activites, and eventually in the workplace? I would argue that a far greater achievement would be for my children to grow up secure in their relationship with God, knowing that they are working towards a far more glorious eternal destiny.

2 Corinthians 4:17-18: 'For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.'

Notwithstanding this important caveat, I would like to share this link to the National (USA that is, so findings may not be 100% generalisable to a UK population) Home Education Research Institute:

http://nheri.org/