Parenting in lockdown: Coronavirus and the effects on work-life balance

Office for National Statistics

Parents in Great Britain who have been able to work through the coronavirus lockdown have adapted their working patterns around caring for their children. There were some clear trends in how that childcare was delivered.

Lockdown in the UK has presented challenges for families whose day-to-day lives were transformed virtually overnight.

At the start of the lockdown (23 March 2020), many people had to rapidly adjust to a ‘new normal’, with school closures, parents furloughed or working from home, and support from outside the home no longer available.

For millions of parents (or those in a parenting role), this included having to care for their children, including homeschooling them, while continuing to work.

Key insights:

·       Parents have changed their weekday working patterns because of childcare commitments

·       Parents working from home delivered most childcare in the afternoon

·       During lockdown, parents spent more time on developmental childcare

·       Women spent more time on childcare than men, with much of this focused on non-developmental childcare and supervising children

·       Women spent much more time on childcare than men when the child was aged under five

·       Parents found developmental childcare more enjoyable

·       Women spent more time on unpaid work and less time on paid work than men

Read more: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/parentinginlockdowncoronavirusandtheeffectsonworklifebalance/2020-07-22

Peer Victimisation in Early Childhood; Observations of Participant Roles and Sex Differences

By Claire P. Monks, Peter K. Smith and Kat J. Kucaba

During middle childhood and adolescence, victimisation appears to be a group process involving different participant roles. However, peer reports with younger children (four to six years old) have failed to identify the participant roles of assistant (to the bully) reinforcers or defenders with much reliability. This may be because peer victimisation is a more dyadic process among younger children (behavioural reality), or because of limitations in young children’s cognitive capacity to identify these behaviours (cognitive limitations). The findings of an observational study which examined the group nature of peer victimisation among young children are presented. Observations were made of 56 children aged four and five years using time sampling during free play at school (totalling 43.5 h of observation). Records were made of their behaviour when an onlooker witnessed aggression by others, and also of others’ behaviour when they were being aggressive or being victimised. Although children other than the aggressor and target were present in nearly two thirds of the episodes of peer victimisation observed, few exhibited behavioural responses in line with the assistant, reinforcer or defender roles. This supports the behavioural reality rather than the cognitive limitations explanation. Sex differences were observed in types of aggression displayed by children, with boys more likely than girls to be physically aggressive. Children were less likely to be aggressive to other-sex peers and were most likely to be victimised by children of the same sex as them. There were also sex differences in children’s onlooker behaviour. The implications for our understanding of the development of peer victimisation and bullying in children are discussed.

Full text available freely online:

Monks, Claire P.; Smith, Peter K.; Kucaba, Kat. 2021. “Peer Victimisation in Early Childhood; Observations of Participant Roles and Sex Differences” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, no. 2: 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020415

How To Dismantle the English State Education System in 10 Easy Steps

BY TERRY EDWARDS AND CARL PARSONS

‘A sharp and incisive account of how state education has been dismantled into a system of competing Multi-Academy Trusts. We were told ‘choice’ would deliver higher standards. It didn’t. It made the system more chaotic, wasteful and segregated. This book explains how it was done.’ Alasdair Smith, National Secretary, Anti Academies Alliance

New book by Terry Edwards and Carl Parsons tells the story of the takeover of England’s schools by the super-efficient, modernising, academising machine, which, in collaboration with a dynamic, forward-looking government is recasting the educational landscape. 

England’s school system is turbo-charged into a new era and will be the envy of the world, led by Chief Executives of Multi Academy Trusts on bankers’ salaries, imposing a slim curriculum, the soundest of discipline regimes and ensuring that highest standards will be achieved even if at the expense of teacher morale, poor service to special needs, off-rolling of students and despite an absolute lack of evidence that this privatised system works.

If you want to know more about the book you can listen to the podcast on Liam Davis Show:

Terry Edwards is a retired teacher who spent the last 38 years of his 41-year career in a ‘challenging’ comprehensive in East London. He was an examiner/moderator for A.Q.A. for 43 years and in this role visited hundreds of state and private schools throughout London and the South East. Since retirement he volunteers with Beanstalk in a local primary school in Greenwich, which his two sons attended in the 1980s, where he helps and encourages pupils to read. Terry has always campaigned for, and believed passionately in, comprehensive and co-educational secondary education and is now involved with CASE (Campaign for State Education). He is based in London, UK.

Prof Carl Parsons is a Visiting Professor of Social Inclusion Studies at the University of Greenwich. He was previously Professor of Education at Canterbury Christ Church University and Head of the Department of Educational Research until August 2009. His background is in research into exclusions, poverty and attainment and other equality issues in education. He is an experienced evaluator and social research methodologist.  Carl’s major professional preoccupation in recent years has been on strategies, structures, roles and practices to manage the continued education of children and young people who are excluded from school, at risk of disconnecting from education or are disadvantaged. In this, he makes the case for ecological thinking, whereby the school is one force for children’s care and development but cannot do the job alone. He is also examining the deleterious effects of the quasi-privatisation of education and the rise of ‘edubusiness’.

How Children and Young People Have Been Affected By the Current COVID-19 Pandemic?

If you are a parent with children aged 6-15 years, researchers at the University of Greenwich are recruiting participants for research examining experiences during the pandemic. We would be very grateful if you could please contribute in this.

Dear parent,

Our research team at the Institute for Lifecourse Development at the University of Greenwich are conducting a research project on the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and young people’s emotional wellbeing. 

We want to capture children’s and young people’s views about what they know and believe about coronavirus. We also want to learn from parents about their experiences of the coronavirus situation. We hope that the findings of the study will interventions that aim to support children and their families and reduce stress arising from public health crises.

If you and your child choose to take part, you will be asked to complete some questionnaires online. Your child will also be asked to write or draw about their coronavirus views. You can visit the following link, if you are interested to take part or want to learn more about the study:

www.tinyurl.com/greenwich-children

If you have any questions or would like more information about this research, please do feel free to contact us.

The research team:

Dr Val Tadic (Senior Lecturer in Psychology), Dr Kat Kucaba (Research and Enterprise Fellow), Professor Claire Monks (Professor of Developmental Psychology), Professor Pam Maras (Professor of Social and Educational Psychology), Dr Mary Clare Martin (Principal Lecturer and Research Lead), Dr Panagiotis Pentaris (Associate Professor of Social Work and Thanatology) and Dr Amy Moon (Research Fellow)

Key contacts for further information about the study:

Dr Val Tadic – v.tadic@gre.ac.uk

Dr Kat Kucaba – k.j.kucaba@gre.ac.uk

Does Bullying Start At Preschool?

Prof Claire P. Monks & Dr Kat Kucaba

Bullying in schools is a major societal concern, and an issue that worries children, parents and teachers.  We know that bullying can have a devastating negative effect on those involved both in the short and longer-term.  Research over the last three decades has provided us with keys to aid in the development of evidence-based intervention and prevention programmes with some success in primary and secondary schools.  There is some evidence that suggests that programmes in primary schools are more successful than those in secondary schools in decreasing bullying.  It may be that it is easier to change patterns of behaviour early on, before they become a ‘normal’ pattern of interaction.  However, many of these programmes still focus on children in later primary school and in secondary school.  That leads us to the question – are we waiting too late to work with young people on bullying? Does bullying occur in early childhood during infant or preschool?

Some children in early childhood (generally 3-6 years) do behave aggressively towards their classmates. They might hit, kick or push them, exclude them from games or call them names.  Although some occasional disputes between children are normal, there is evidence that some children are consistently aggressive to others and that this type of behaviour early on can put children at risk of later difficulties. However, the behaviours observed during early childhood are not exactly the same as what we would term ‘bullying’ later on.   What we see during early childhood is that those children who behave aggressively to others are almost doing so in an indiscriminate way, they are behaving aggressively to a wide variety of classmates, which is in contrast to what we see in bullying, where bullies pick on the same children over and over again. 

Bullying in older groups often occurs in the presence of other children who may behave in different ways, either joining in or encouraging the bully, or by sticking up for the child who is being picked on.  Research tells us that these behaviours can help encourage or reduce bullying (depending on their pro- or anti-bullying stance).  In early childhood, although some children help the person who is being picked on, there are fewer children involved in helping or encouraging the perpetrator, suggesting that the role of the group is less important in early childhood.  These differences between bullying in older groups and the behaviours we see in early childhood have led people to argue that what we are seeing isn’t bullying at this age.  There is very rarely the deliberate repeated targeting of others, or the involvement of a ‘gang’ that we see in older groups.  This might reflect the early origins of bullying.  

Research among older children shows that friends are similar in aggressive, prosocial and victim behaviour already at ages from 6 to 12 years old. Therefore, we expect aggressive children to be friends with other aggressive children which is worrying as it can increase anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, friendships of children who exhibit anti-social behaviour look different: they use more coercion with one another which is something that other children don’t do. But the side effect of this behaviour is less reciprocated friendships among children who are aggressive. It is important to explore if these patterns are already present among friends at a young age and if they help to predict future involvement in bullying behaviour. We seek answers to these question in our current paper focussed on friendships of aggressive children in early childhood. 

Although bullying as we would recognise it among older groups isn’t often observed among younger children, this does not mean that we shouldn’t work to support young children in bullying prevention. It is possible that some of the behaviours that we see in early childhood may lead to later bullying. It is therefore important that anti-bullying work starts early, with children when they first start mixing on a regular basis with peers; whether that is in preschool or infant classes. Although there are anti-bullying programmes that have proven to have positive effects for older children, for example KiVa programme that changes the behaviour of bystanders which in turn diminishes episodes of bullying, there are very few that have focussed on children during early childhood.  

It is important that we develop tailored intervention programmes for young children. It is not sufficient to alter programmes designed for older children with simplified language or the use of cartoons or puppets. Helping children to develop their socio-emotional skills can be a helpful approach – one of the programmes that addresses this issue is Free of Bullying programme developed in Denmark. Given what we know about aggression towards classmates in early childhood, and some of the key differences it has to bullying, we need to ensure that programmes are age-appropriate – not only in terms of accessibility to young children, but also in terms of addressing the types of behaviours that they themselves may be exhibiting or experiencing.  

We are behind in developing programmes addressing these forms of behaviour with young children compared to where we are with older children.  We suggest that it is important for researchers and practitioners to work together to develop evidence informed programmes to address these behaviours with young children in order to support the development of those who behave aggressively, those who are targeted and their peers.

Interesting links:

Free of Bullying Programme for 0-8 year olds https://www.freeofbullying.com

KiVa Programme https://www.kivaprogram.net

Monks, C. P., & O’Toole, S. (forthcoming). Bullying in preschool and infant school. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.) Wiley Handbook of Bullying, Vol. 2. London: Wiley.

Should We Be Worrying About Our Kids’ Screen-time During The Lockdown?

Professor Claire P. Monks

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, many schools in the UK and other countries across the world have been closed for extended periods of time. This has meant that many young people have been heavily reliant on going online and using technology mediated communication (TMC) such as Microsoft Teams, Skype, WhatsApp and many others to access education materials and to keep in touch with their friends and extended family.  However, should we be worried about the amount of time they’ve been spending online?

We are all aware of some of the serious risks that young people can face communicating with others online.  This includes exposure to negative peer pressure, involvement in cyberbullying or exposure to inappropriate content as well as the risk of online grooming.  There is some indication that more time online is associated with poorer mental health, although the findings are mixed (with some studies not finding a link) and other factors such as problematic peer relationships and family factors have been found to have substantially more effect on young people’s mental health than time spent online. 

Young people spend a considerable proportion of time online communicating with people they know in real life and often see TMC as an extension of their in-person communication.  Research from before the COVID-19 pandemic found that young people use TMC to connect with friends outside of school hours, and to keep in touch with people they are dating; reporting that they often feel that these forms of interaction can strengthen their relationships. Studies have shown that there is evidence that those who already have good social connections benefit from online communication by being able to complement their in-person friendships with online chatting.  Young people who are socially anxious may also benefit from these forms of communication as well, perhaps because the ‘distance’ allowed by these means of communication means that they are less anxiety inducing.

Childhood and adolescence are important periods of development and peer relationships have a key role in the social and emotional development of young people. It has been argued that the social distancing measures brought in in response to the COVID-19 pandemic may be particularly difficult for young people. Early research that is now being published has indicated that many young people have reported feeling lonely during the lockdown and that this may have had a negative effect on their mental health. Many young people turned to online media as their only way of communicating with friends and extended family during the lockdown, spending more of their leisure time online.  This has helped young people to maintain connections with those outside of their household by chatting via WhatsApp, attending out of school clubs on Zoom, hosting parties in Housepartyor playing online games together in Fortnite. It has been suggested by some researchers that these tools have been a way to mitigate some of the negative effects of lockdown.  

For us as parents or educators, it is vital to strike the balance with online interaction. There are risks, and these are real, but there are also real benefits and whatever our opinion about it, online communication is here to stay. What we need to do is ensure that young people continue to communicate with their parents/educators about what they are doing online, and that adults ensure that they are aware of the ways in which they can minimise the risks posed online through both discussion with young people as well as through technological means. 

So, coming back to the original question – should we be worrying about the amount of time our kids spent online during the lockdown?  The evidence suggests that it isn’t really the amount of time that is the issue, but rather we need to be careful about what they are doing, who they are interacting with and the content they are viewing, and that although there are risks, there are likely to be clear benefits as well.  As lockdown is relaxing, it is vital that we reflect on these experiences, providing young people with experiences to meet friends (where safe) in person or online.  

Further reading:

N. Van Zalk & C. P. Monks (2020). Online Peer Engagement in Adolescence: Positive and Negative Aspects of Online Social Interaction – Studies in Adolescent Development.London: Routledge.

Orben, A., Tomova, L., & Blakemore, S-J. (2020) The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2352-4642(20)30186-3

Kardefelt-Winther, D., Rees, G., & Livingstone, S. (2020) Contextualising the link between adolescents’ use of digital technology and their mental health: a multicountry study of time spent online and life satisfaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry doi:10.1111/jcpp.13280