Wednesday 15 September 2010

Separation anxiety and the psychological health of schooled children

I always find something a little sad about September, not least because of the sight of all those children returning to school. I cannot help noticing that the little ones attending primary school seem really little these days. This is not just one of those things that happen as one grows older, like policemen looking younger; the age at which children start formal education genuinely has dropped over the years.

The legal situation in the United Kingdom is that children have to begin full-time education in the term after their fifth birthdays. Hardly any child is enrolled at school that late though. It has become a universal practice for children to be offered a place at school a year earlier than this. Subtle pressure is placed upon parents to accept these offers, because it is made plain that if they don't take the place now, it may not be available the following year. This is all of a piece with the official notion in this country that children are actually better off in institutional care than they are at home with their mothers and fathers. Socially caring governments announce proudly that every four year old shall be entitled to a school place, every three year old a nursery place and eventually all two year olds will be guaranteed the right to nursery or day care. I suppose the eventual aim is that the baby should be whisked away from the mother almost as soon as it is born and taken off to day-care. This is of course the situation in Sweden.

I have been re-reading some of John Bowlby's work lately. Bowlby of course developed Attachment Theory and invented the term' maternal deprivation'. Briefly, he suggested that a human baby, like other young animals, forms an attachment with one person for the first few years of life. This person is, for purely biological reasons, usually the mother. If the connection between the child and this attachment figure is broken or disrupted during the first five or six years of life, Bowlby found that there could be serious and irreversible consequences. These ranged from delinquency and depression through to reduced intelligence and increased aggression. In cases where the attachment figure is separated entirely from the child, as can happen in long hospital stays and children's homes, he found that the result could be the creation of an affectionless psychopath. He called the feelings of the child on being separated from his mother, 'separation anxiety'.

Now most of Bowlby's work back in the fifties and sixties was with children who had been removed entirely and permanently from their mothers for various reasons such as breakdown of the family and long term illness. He thought that any disruption of the maternal bond was a bad thing, but fifty years ago children remained at home with their mothers until after their fifth birthday and so he did not investigate the type of maternal deprivation with which we have become familiar today. It is always hazardous to postulate a cause and effect relationship for two events based simply upon the fact that one follows the other. There is the risk of falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of reasoning. Nevertheless, I cannot help but observe that the decreasing age at which small children are regularly separated from their mothers in this country has coincided almost precisely with an increase in rates of delinquency, depression, aggression, antisocial behaviour and various other negative behaviours in young people. If Bowlby was right, and most professionals today believe that he was, then taking a child from her mother regularly at the age of two or three is likely to cause psychological harm in many of them. The earlier this removal from the mother occurs, the more likely is the damage to the child.

Even if we do not subscribe to every detail of John Bowlby's ideas about maternal deprivation, there is a host of other good reasons for not sending two and three year-olds into full-time education and day-care. Small children learn essential skills not from other children but from adults. Skills like how to hold a conversation, for example. A child's cognitive skills are also best developed in the company of an adult and not other children. Thrusting a small child into a group of other children and depriving her of the loving one-to-one care of a parent strikes me on an instinctual level too as a shockingly bad idea!

The idea that a baby should go off to day-care, nursery and school almost as soon as it can breathe has become ingrained in the thinking of early years professionals in this country. While it is true that there are homes where the child is not receiving sufficient stimulation and care and would probably be better off spending the day elsewhere, there is no reason at all to suppose that such homes are particularly common. This wholesale removal of small children from their mothers and fathers on a regular basis and an increasingly young age strikes me as very bad idea for many reasons. I am aware that many home educating parents are fanatically opposed to anything which looks even remotely like formal testing and examination of their children, but I have a strong suspicion that any examination of the psychological health of adolescents who had not been removed from their families in this way might well show significant differences from those who had been hustled off to such institutions during their early childhood.

22 comments:

  1. This must be one of those (rare) days when surely we will all agree!

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of things I have noticed among home educated little ones is that the issue of 'separation anxiety' becomes a non-issue. Most of the children I know who have not been to nursery or school seem to move gradually from being with their parent at gatherings and groups to playing with friends and then on to independent socialising - sleepovers and so on.

    It seems to me that it is almost a badge of pride to have a three year old who will trot off happily for hours without a parent and nurseries and schools encourage this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, Simon and Allie. This is because we live in a society where *INdependence* is prized above almost every other thing.

    The concept of *inter-dependence* within families and communities is gradually being lost.

    And Lord help those children whose disabilities mean that they will always be *dependent* to some degree. It's a badge of shame.

    Mrs Anon (parent of adult child with autism)

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.whataboutthechildren.org.uk/

    Lone professional voices speaking out against routine daycare for under threes.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'This must be one of those (rare) days when surely we will all agree!'

    Yes, no argument from me. I started home educating because separation from me was so distressing for my children.

    Forgive my hazy memory, (no citations) but anthropology bears this out. Very simply, in peaceful tribes babies tend to be kept close to mothers, in tribes where men are required to be aggressive warriors they tend to be separated early.

    No disagreement today, but I would just like to refer back to yesterday's post. My experience with my young children is an example of how children are often better placed to make decisions for themselves than their parents, even when they are very young. I had everyone in the world telling me that I should make my children stay in nursery/playgroup/school and that it was good for them to learn independence. If like most people I had believed this advice and walked away from my screaming children because I knew better that them what was good for them, I would have done them a great disservice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Meh...I'm more inclined to look at the whole rather than a single issue as being "the" cause of anything.

    A non chaotic home with stable relationships and warm, consistent parenting where the children attend day care from say 12 months on is more likely to produce negative outcomes that a chaotic home, with "revolving door" relationships and inconsistant parenting that lacks warmth where the kids stay at home until 5+ ?

    Personally I think the whole hoo har is based on guilt tripping mothers into entended dependancy. God forbid that we risk some serious cracks in the glass ceiling thanks to some enmass headbanging against it.

    I'm not at all pleased with the stories lionising mums who go back to work an hour after birth either.

    Last thing I'd want to see is an American style "six weeks maternity leave for all" put into play, my stiches still hurt at six weeks let alone any seperation issues I would have had given that my baby was permamntly attached to my nipple.

    The whole SAHM v WOHM, and at what point is that "acceptable" debate is just one more hurdle put into place to keep women and children at the bottom of the povety heap.

    The fact that is is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't is just the cherry on the flipping cake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'The whole SAHM v WOHM, and at what point is that "acceptable" debate is just one more hurdle put into place to keep women and children at the bottom of the povety heap.'

    By whom, Sarah?

    'This is all of a piece with the official notion in this country that children are actually better off in institutional care than they are at home with their mothers and fathers.'

    Simon is right when he says that. Perhaps you've missed this trend in the UK whilst living in Italy? You might be shocked by the current pervasive PC ideology that parents are actually bad for children who must be removed from them as soon as possible so that the real professionals can get to work on them.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'A non chaotic home with stable relationships and warm, consistent parenting where the children attend day care from say 12 months on is more likely to produce negative outcomes that a chaotic home, with "revolving door" relationships and inconsistant parenting that lacks warmth where the kids stay at home until 5+ ?'

    No, of course not. The issue is attachment, which may be a single issue, but is surely a pretty vital one. Fathers, grandparents or unrelated regular carers can provide this almost as effectively as mothers, breastfeeding aside. The problem is with institutional daycare where young children are not given the opportunity to form a stable attachment to a consistent carer.

    'The whole SAHM v WOHM, and at what point is that "acceptable" debate is just one more hurdle put into place to keep women and children at the bottom of the povety heap.'

    I think it's more about undervaluing attachment, and in particular motherhood. Yes, if I choose to stay at home with my under-5 I am likely to be at the bottom of the poverty heap, and stigmatised as a non-productive economic unit. It will also be harder for me to return to my former rung on the career ladder when my child is ready. However, if I return to work when my child is very young my earning potential will be greater, I will be seen as doing my duty to society, and I will be given money to pay for my child's place in an institution if I can't afford to pay for it myself. My friend and I were discussing this the other day; the government will pay her to look after my child, and me to look after hers, so we could both register as childminders and look after each other's children. That is acceptable. However, being given the same amount of money to stay at home and look after our own children is not. That makes us lazy, benefit-dependent scroungers in the eyes of society.

    'Personally I think the whole hoo har is based on guilt tripping mothers into entended dependancy.'

    I think it's the opposite. I think it's about guilt tripping mothers *out of* dependency which is not 'extended' but 'full-term'.

    Feminism for me is not about being able to jump hrough the same hoops as men; it's about challenging the assumption that men's hoops are more valid and useful to society than women's hoops. I am as valuable a member of society if I choose to allow my children to experience full-term attachment, as I am if I consign them to daycare and return to my high-flying career.

    There is a double standard, though. SAHM's (particularly single ones) are stigmatised, while SAHF's (particularly single ones) are lionised as noble, self-sacrificing heroes.

    Personally, I don't see the time I spent at home with my children as a sacrifice. I see it as a very important job which benefits society as a whole. And I have no guilt about taking money from the state as payment for the job. I was seriously underpaid.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Claire says-Personally, I don't see the time I spent at home with my children as a sacrifice. I see it as a very important job which benefits society as a whole. And I have no guilt about taking money from the state as payment for the job. I was seriously underpaid.

    you dont get paid to stay at home to look after your children by the state?

    if you know how you can claim money lets us know LOL

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mrs Anons says-You might be shocked by the current pervasive PC ideology that parents are actually bad for children who must be removed from them as soon as possible so that the real professionals can get to work on them.

    Old Webb wants children removed from parents as soon as possible that is why he fully supported that crap childrens bill!

    did you not support the bill as well Mrs Anon?

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, Mr Turniphead, I did not. In fact I spent a good deal of time last year arguing against it here in the comments section of this very blog. But, apparently, you did not notice, so obsessed were you with the notion of that non-existent £5,000.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'you dont get paid to stay at home to look after your children by the state?

    if you know how you can claim money lets us know LOL'

    Same way as anyone else. I claimed Income Support, which any full-time parent with no financial support and a child under 12 (soon to be reduced to 10, I think) is entitled to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mrs Anon says-No, Mr Turniphead, I did not. In fact I spent a good deal of time last year arguing against it here in the comments section of this very blog. But, apparently, you did not notice, so obsessed were you with the notion of that non-existent £5,000.

    its not non -existent that money dont you want some extra money to help with your child? if you dont want your share i have it! what a good idea those home educators that dont want it i have it!

    We did better than just write on old webb blog we wrote to weird Badman and to loser Balls and to select commitee Peter letter was the first one in beating Webb!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Claire says-Same way as anyone else. I claimed Income Support, which any full-time parent with no financial support and a child under 12 (soon to be reduced to 10, I think) is entitled to do.

    we cant claim anything! not a penny! only child benfit which every one gets if you got a child. thats why we need that 5 grand!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why don't you set up a Free School, Mr Turniphead? The government has plenty of money to give away for those.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Claire says-Why don't you set up a Free School, Mr Turniphead? The government has plenty of money to give away for those.

    no i prefer to use Eton college Claire! i have your share of the 5 grand you dont want thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've been a feminist for more than twenty tears and in my ideal world we'd see changes based on truly valuing the needs of children - not commercialising childcare for the good of the market.

    I think that babies and young children are happiest when they are cared for by people who love them. Sorry if that sounds too "touch-feely" for this blog!

    I can't help but look back on the hours and hours of everyday life I spent with our two when they were tiny and feel that my love meant that I was truly fascinated and engaged. If they had been just one or two of a room full of children, for whom I felt no more than a vague fondness, then I don't think they would have got anything like the same input.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Sorry if that sounds too "touch-feely" for this blog!"

    Yet Simon seems to be agreeing with this type of touchy-feelyness. Isn't it also a bit "touchy-feely" to be so over protective of children and teenagers as regards protecting them from their own choices too? What exactly do you mean by "touchy-feely" in your biog, Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've just finished reading "How not to f*** them up" by Oliver James. It gives a very good account of why daycare is a bad idea up to 3yo and also that it is the stable attachment that matters, not the genetic relationship of the adult to the child.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This paragraph will assist the internet visitors for creating new webpage or even a blog from start to end.


    Check out my blog post Shelba Lamber

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blend the main fruit rose the river. Visit materialsutilized for developing the
    type of stove. A person's tandoor will, no doubt recognized examination electrical power should you inevitably cleanse it ideally. Cookies in truth retain food cooking for a minimum of 5-10 considerably calling considering they finish up, therefore , parting these items pliable inside they may be try out gooey as well as the oh therefore scrumptious!

    My homepage :: Keshia Bermejo

    ReplyDelete