I think we all know, deep in our guts, that a certain level of quantity matters.

The article doesn't say how many people were part of the study. That is important.

I read the article and it seems pretty pointless to me. Why didn't they study ages 0-3? Quality over quantity--how much quality time? What's the minimum quantity? The only conclusions here are that the mother's education matters and rich people's kids do better...didn't we already know that?

I think Brigid is a terrible reporter/writer. Its amazing to me how low the quality at the Post is considering how competitive the journalism field has become. (petula dvorak is another parenting writer who just is terrible).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It contains gems like this:

"Cultural beliefs about mothering center on the near sacredness of mothers for children. Mothers’ time with children is thought to be unique and irreplaceable, given that they are purportedly more sensitive to children’s needs and more selfless in caring for offspring. For children, being with their mothers, strong and central to their families, is thought to be better than time spent with any other adult (Blair-Loy 2003; Collins 1999; Hays 1996; Liss et al. 2012). Popular cultural practices such as professional athletes saying “Hi Mom!” on camera highlight mothers special, revered place in the hearts of daughters and sons."

Pure straw-man nonsense.

RE: Athletes saying "Hi Mom!" - Clearly whoever authored the study hasn't bothered to read any studies on professional athletes or low income families. Otherwise, she might have known that many professional athletes weren't raised with a father. Hence, "Hi Mom!"

Okay, can we all agree how ridiculous this study is? My fifth grader could have drawn the same conclusions as the study.

or prefers not to recognize that fact

Anonymous wrote:It contains gems like this:

"Cultural beliefs about mothering center on the near sacredness of mothers for children. Mothers’ time with children is thought to be unique and irreplaceable, given that they are purportedly more sensitive to children’s needs and more selfless in caring for offspring. For children, being with their mothers, strong and central to their families, is thought to be better than time spent with any other adult (Blair-Loy 2003; Collins 1999; Hays 1996; Liss et al. 2012). Popular cultural practices such as professional athletes saying “Hi Mom!” on camera highlight mothers special, revered place in the hearts of daughters and sons."

Pure straw-man nonsense.

RE: Athletes saying "Hi Mom!" - Clearly whoever authored the study hasn't bothered to read any studies on professional athletes or low income families. Otherwise, she might have known that many professional athletes weren't raised with a father. Hence, "Hi Mom!"

Okay, can we all agree how ridiculous this study is? My fifth grader could have drawn the same conclusions as the study.

Table 3 shows the relationship between time and children’s outcomes when controlling for demographic and time diary characteristics. Once control factors are added to the models, there are no statistically significant associations between time and children’s outcomes. Social class, on the other hand, as measured by mother’s education and family income, has a stronger
relationship with children’s well-being. Family income is positively associated with children’s general health (p<0.001) and math achievement (p<0.01) and negatively associated with children’s behavioral and emotional problems (p<0.01). Mothers’ education is positively associated with children’s health (p<0.05) and self-concept (p<0.001) as well as their performance in reading (p<0.001) and math (p<0.001).

"This study shows that mother time may be less efficacious than assumed as “fact” in that more does not translate easily into better outcomes. Yet it is not the definitive study that trumpets: “Mothers Do Not Matter.” It is clear that mothers’ behaviors matter in myriad of ways, many positively. But given the general set of findings here, it is incumbent upon other researchers to show how and why the amount of mother time does matter for children."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it says income and mothers educational level are the most important factors in their longitudinal study, that trumps both quality and quantity

It's embedded in the article, since it's not as interesting as your take-home message

Thanks for sharing

So if we are well off and I have a PhD, I can mail it in? Yes!!

No. It means most well educated affluent parents are going to make education a priority, will provide stable housing and sufficient food, will likely have a father figure in place, probably won't live in a dangerous area, probably won't expose the kids to drugs and alcohol, etc.

And common sense dictates that a kid growing up in that environment will fare better than a kid growing up with a crackhead in a trailer park.

Duh!

Who funds these studies? And why?

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it says income and mothers educational level are the most important factors in their longitudinal study, that trumps both quality and quantity

It's embedded in the article, since it's not as interesting as your take-home message

Thanks for sharing

So if we are well off and I have a PhD, I can mail it in? Yes!!

No. It means most well educated affluent parents are going to make education a priority, will provide stable housing and sufficient food, will likely have a father figure in place, probably won't live in a dangerous area, probably won't expose the kids to drugs and alcohol, etc.

And common sense dictates that a kid growing up in that environment will fare better than a kid growing up with a crackhead in a trailer park.

Duh!

Who funds these studies? And why?

Thank you, Debbie Downer.

It contains gems like this:

"Cultural beliefs about mothering center on the near sacredness of mothers for children. Mothers’ time with children is thought to be unique and irreplaceable, given that they are purportedly more sensitive to children’s needs and more selfless in caring for offspring. For children, being with their mothers, strong and central to their families, is thought to be better than time spent with any other adult (Blair-Loy 2003; Collins 1999; Hays 1996; Liss et al. 2012). Popular cultural practices such as professional athletes saying “Hi Mom!” on camera highlight mothers special, revered place in the hearts of daughters and sons."

Pure straw-man nonsense.

I found a copy of the paper when it was a "working paper" (i.e. before peer review).

http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2012-043/PWP-BGSU-2012-043.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it says income and mothers educational level are the most important factors in their longitudinal study, that trumps both quality and quantity

It's embedded in the article, since it's not as interesting as your take-home message

Thanks for sharing

So if we are well off and I have a PhD, I can mail it in? Yes!!

No. It means most well educated affluent parents are going to make education a priority, will provide stable housing and sufficient food, will likely have a father figure in place, probably won't live in a dangerous area, probably won't expose the kids to drugs and alcohol, etc.

And common sense dictates that a kid growing up in that environment will fare better than a kid growing up with a crackhead in a trailer park.

Duh!

Who funds these studies? And why?

Found the article, but you cannot read it unless you pay:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/jomf.12170/full

I find it irksome that the title poses a question rather than answers it. Very lazy.

You can read the first page. It does seem like a straw-man setup.

Anonymous wrote:feel better?

Hopefully, parents won't use this study to justify minimal time spent with their children. It makes sense that quality time trumps quantity, but how about giving our kids a large quantity of quality time? From years spent educating children, I see far too many children who rarely see their parents. They're dropped off at school around 7:30 and picked up from after-school care around 6. In a recent meeting with a single mom who works full-time and is going through a divorce from her 11 year old son's step-dad (yes, this child has had two father figures in his life, and mom now has a new boyfriend), the mom expressed her frustration that her son is doing so poorly in school and required two weeks of in-patient psychiatric care. Not saying this scenario is typical, but it's much more frequent than it should be. On a basic level, this child is not being parented with the loving guidance and care that he needs.