Media Watch:

by Susan De Ritis, Media and Public Relations Director
Reprinted from the July/August 2003 issue of Welcome Home®

“... many Americans think preschool children should be at home with their mothers... but that is a vanished age.” --The Economist

“Wobbly First Steps: Early schooling works. New proposals may jeopardise it,” (The Economist, April 12, 2003) builds the case for the need to ensure at-risk young children in the United States get government-supported early childhood education. “The benefits of early education are well known. It helps to determine how long children stay in high school, whether they turn to crime, and how quickly they will find a job,” the writer says. However, proposed reauthorization of the national Head Start program to the state level worries some early-schooling advocates who believe national standards will be undermined and cash-strapped local jurisdictions will cut back on additional services.

In an effort to further explain why early education/care is threatened, The Economist cites “turf squabbles and jealousy among other child-care groups... [and] lack of money,” and that “research also shows that many Americans think pre-school children should be at home with their mothers.” Then the article states, “But that is a vanished age. Nowadays, when 73% of American women with children work... efficient and affordable child care is essential for employee-productivity as well as for the good of the children themselves.”

Cathy Myers, executive director of FAHN, sent a letter to The Economist’s editor pointing out that its misuse of statistics perpetuates the misconception that a majority of mothers are employed full-time and require child care services. As well, she states that the needs of children are best met by parents themselves, or through a combination of child services and parental care for those families who require assistance.

Thanks to Alison M. for sharing this article with us.

Cindy Krischer Goodman’s article, “Second Income May Not Pay Off,” (Contra Costa Times, April 21, 2003, and other newspapers) explores the financial aspects of living on one income. “As the economy sinks deeper and job layoffs continue, it just might be time to figure things out. In some cases, when you look at how much money a second wage earner brings home and take into account what he or she spends to earn it, the outcome is that the second income just doesn’t pay,” says Ms. Goodman. While Ms. Goodman offers in-depth financial, tax and benefit analyses of one vs. two income families, her approach is purely financial. There is no mention of the benefits to either child or parent when a family makes the decision, and plans accordingly, to live on one income so a parent at home can raise the children.

Note: The FAHN web site links to a “Can One of You Afford to Quit?” financial calculator. FAHN contacted Ms. Goodman to inform her of our advocacy work on behalf of parents who forgo or cut back on paid employment to nurture their children.

Thanks to Cathy K. for sharing this article with us.

“Check It Out: Hi, Mom!” by Nancy McKeon was a small box in the business section of The Washington Post (5/4/03). What caught our attention was the photo of three babies and a woman in a skirt and high heels holding a brief case. In just three sentences, Ms. McKeon managed to report vague statistical information on the percentage of mothers employed full-time and disparage mothers who raise their children full-time.

On May 10, The Post printed this response from FAHN:

“They’re All Working Mothers”

How insulting. Your May 4 Business section contains a box titled “Check It Out: Hi, Mom!” by Nancy McKeon that not only disparages mothers who raise their children at home but also throws out vague and misleading statistical information about how many mothers work full-time.

McKeon cites a survey by Scarborough Research that found that 55 percent of women in the Washington area with children at home work full-time, compared with the national average of 48.6 percent. What age are those children? Infants, school-age, teenagers? It makes a difference. By accompanying this tidbit with a photograph of babies, you imply that mothers with very young children are the ones who head back to the workforce full-time.

And did McKeon really mean to say that mothers who are raising their children full-time do not deserve to have a happy Mother’s Day? “More than half of area women really deserve a happy Mother’s Day next Sunday,” to quote her.

It is incredible that McKeon would think that 45 percent of area mothers do not deserve one--much less that your paper would print such a sentence.

Being an at-home parent is a demanding, rewarding, challenging and fulfilling role. Mother’s Day is one day of the year when all mothers should be recognized.