The UK Telegraph has published an interesting article summarising new research from Oxford University, which claims that children who spend long periods of time in child care are more likely to develop behavioural problems such as hyperactivity:
The disclosure will revive debate over the best way to raise children amid a surge in the number of under-fives enrolled in nurseries and with childminders in the past 20 years. Figures from the Department for Education show that 441,000 children under five are in day nurseries while another 272,000 are being looked after by childminders…
The report, published in the journal Child: Care, Health and Development, said that “children who spent more time in group care, mainly nursery care, were more likely to have behavioural problems, particularly hyperactivity”…
“Children who spent more time in day care centres were more likely to be hyperactive,” it said. “Children receiving more care by childminders were more likely to have peer problems.”
Whether sending children to child care leads to developmental problems down the track is a moot point. No doubt, I could find studies suggesting that child care is beneficial. Moreover, some European countries, like Denmark, have widely used child care for decades, with seemingly few adverse consequences.
Nevertheless, I have often wondered whether many dual income families in Australia are that way through choice, or because they require the extra income in order to make ends meet and pay-off their jumbo-sized mortgages. Certainly, I know of a few families in my age group where the mother has been forced to go back to work early, and send their children to childcare, because they cannot afford to live on just one wage.
To the extent that families are being forced to work longer and harder than they otherwise would if homes were affordable, then surely this is a negative for the family health and well being, let alone that of their children?
Then there is the shrinking block sizes and loss of open space caused by urban consolidation policies pursued by Australia’s state governments. The building of large houses on tiny blocks, with narrow footpaths and roads (because of the excessive land prices), allows little room to plant trees or veggie gardens. It also means that homes are packed so close together that many do not contain roof eves or verandas and have poor air flow, requiring greater air conditioning in the summer. The lack of backyards and open space also encourages children to remain inside playing video games and watching TV, which of course also uses more energy.
The imposition of urban growth boundaries can also lead to lower income households ‘leapfroging’ the boundary and settling in far flung exurban towns where housing is more affordable. Such activity can act to exacerbate urban ‘sprawl’ and increase car reliance and energy usage, which has detrimental distributional impacts in particular on lower socio-economic groups.
Overall, it’s hard not to view expensive housing as a blight on families. It increases their cost of living, forcing them to work longer and harder than would otherwise be the case, with particularly pernicious impacts for those families lower down the income scale.
