The way that children are brought up and nurtured is important as the impressions that will be made will be evident in adulthood.
The analysis of research into childhood in the UK was a mixed picture. According to the data (‘Measuring National Wellbeing, Exploring the Wellbeing of Children in the UK, 2012,’ Office for National Statistics), 77 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 years were satisfied with their lives. It could be countermanded by the number of children who were victims of crime (12 per cent), those who were frequently bullied (12 per cent) and those who were overweight or obese (35 per cent, particularly in the 11 to 15 years age group).
On a positive note, 75 per cent thought that the things they did in their lives were worthwhile and 74 per cent reported a moderate to high level of happiness, as separate from satisfaction.
There seems to be an increase in the desire to talk to their parents. It found that 61 per cent talked with their mother about ‘things that matter’ more than once a week (compared to 51 per cent in 2002). Likewise, 37 per cent talked to their fathers frequently (compared to 31 per cent in 2002).
Interestingly, 28 per cent quarrelled with their mother more than once a week, whilst 20 per cent did so with their fathers.
Seventy-four per cent were relatively happy with the way they looked, whereas 12 per cent were unhappy with this aspect of their lives (17 per cent of girls and 9 per cent of boys). The statistics are not surprising in the view of the quest for the media’s perception of the ‘perfect look.’
Technology was an important part of their lives, with 98 per cent of children using a computer at home. The use was different as 85 per cent belonged to a social network site, 96 per cent had a games console, and 75 per cent spent more than an hour on a school night watching TVs or DVDs.
Although there are many positive role models and programmes, it is with regret that not all children will be recipients of such love in their formative years.
According to reports in the Lancet (September 2014), one in five child deaths in England (which total approximately 5,000 each year) could be prevented. The 15 to 17 years age group have the highest proportion of preventable deaths from suicide, accidents, abuse and neglect.
The positive aspect is that child mortality for the UK, in common with other high income countries, has fallen to very low rates, as evidenced in the children aged below one years-old (which has always shown the highest mortality rates) where infant deaths decreased from 7.88 per 1,000 births in 1990 to 4.36 in 2011. In other age groups, deaths have fallen by 50 per cent since 1990.
At least half of all child mortality in England and Wales are a result of chronic, life-limiting diseases.
However, in the UK as a whole, child mortality remained high compared with many other European countries because of the income gap between rich and poor. The child mortality rates tended to be higher in the Midlands and north of England, and lower in the south and east, seemingly affecting poorer families disproportionately. In all of the age groups, the death rates were higher in boys than in girls.
The researchers from the University of Warwick have stated that additional measures can be undertaken to cut future deaths across all age groups by tackling child poverty and spotting serious illnesses at an earlier stage.
Dr Peter Sidebotham, the series lead author and associate professor of child health at the University of Warwick, stated: ‘It needs to be recognised that many child deaths could be prevented through a combination of changes in long-term political commitment, welfare services to tackle poverty, and healthcare services.
‘Politicians should recognise that child survival is as much linked to socioeconomic policies that reduce inequality as it is to a country’s overall gross domestic product and systems of healthcare delivery.’
The researchers honed in on the three ‘key areas’ where child mortality rates could be improved. The first area was for strategies to promote a healthy no-smoking lifestyle to women during pregnancy which would assist in reducing the number of stillbirth and perinatal deaths, up to seven days after birth.
The second area was that the researchers recommended ‘enhanced and extended training of family doctors’ and improved communication with parents and families when spotting signs of illness or failing health.
The final area was that ‘there was strong economic and ethical argument to target prevention strategies at the most vulnerable’ in order to reduce deaths and suicides in older children.
The report concludes that all countries in the UK should investigate all the different factors in a child’s death as this knowledge could be used to prevent more deaths.
Dr Sidebotham continued: ‘Child death review processes that are being developed in many high-income countries provide important details of the circumstances surrounding a death and can add a greater understanding of how and why children die.
‘To be effective, child death reviews need to be conducted by multi-disciplinary teams that share information about the circumstances of child deaths, with the goal of preventing future deaths and improving child health and welfare.’
Dr Hilary Cass, the President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, responded in support of the report (particularly with reference to the deaths caused by accidents, suicides and abuse in the older age group): ‘It means equipping all professionals with the knowledge and skills to identify mental health difficulties earlier, better access to mental health support for children and young people, and making sure that Ofsted’s inspection framework for early years settings, schools and colleges includes consideration of the extent to which these settings promote children and young people’s social and emotional wellbeing.’
She continued: ‘We also want to see some practical measures such as the reduction of the national speed limit in built-up areas to 20mph and the introduction of Graduated Licensing Schemes for novice drivers to reduce road deaths.’
When a child is at home, school or elsewhere, he or she is being technologically savvy. It has been estimated that the average UK family:
· Owns three laptops, computers or tablets;
· Owns three mobile phones;
· Owns two TVs;
· Watches about 5.2 hours of TV a day;
· AND rows twice a day about what to watch on TV.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation study in 2010, the average child aged between 8 and 18 years ‘now spends practically every waking minutes – except for the time in school – using a smart phone, computer, television or other electronic devices. They will spend seven and a half hours on such devices, one and a half hours texting, and half an hour on the mobile phone. Because children are capable of multitasking (such as watching a YouTube clip whilst texting and listening to their iPod), they will shoehorn nearly eleven hours of media content into the seven and a half hours.
The electronic devices are taking over the need for family interaction. In a poll of teachers by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) in April 2014, most of the respondents (74 per cent) felt that families are spending less time together as parents are putting work (94 per cent) or technology (92 per cent) before their children. There is a knock-on effect as children who spend ten hours in school or child care will then not talk to anyone, fall asleep and lag behind their peers.
The motion at the ATL conference for that year was that strong families are ‘the bedrock of a strong and stable society’ and that families need a work-life balance that allowed them to spend time together.
Dr Mary Bousted, the General Secretary of the ATL, commented: ‘It’s really important for children to have time to be children, to play with friends and spend time with their families.
‘However, increasing living costs mean that for most families, it is now unaffordable for only one parent to work.
‘Parents in the UK are working some of the longest hours in Europe and this puts a huge pressure on family life.
‘Parents are coming home exhausted having worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and frequently the children are tired too if they’ve spent all day at school or with childminders.’
These findings are backed up in ‘Time, Health and the Family: what working families want’ (Bright Horizons/Working Families report 2014) where more than half of parents report that they are unable to get home on time because (as examples) there is too much work, the culture of staying late, lack of proper planning, and the expectation of the employer.
This report concluded that: ‘Families need time together, although what they do changes as children grow up. What parents of young children want might be very different to what parents of teenagers want, or those who have eldercare responsibilities. The overspill of work into family life is not a new phenomenon, and it is unreasonable to expect that work demands never impinge on family life. However, what many families report in this report is frequent disruption of time together and of activities. It is unsurprising that this erosion of some family times fosters resentment. Even when working hours are not excessively long, a picture where half of parents are only able to leave work half the time or less, and where forty per cent find their time impinged often or all the time is one where the balance, for these families at least, is less than ideal. Families appear to be resilient, with contentment about work and family balance more positive than negative. But this may be fragile, and, with stress a real issue for many parents, time for the ‘life’ part of the work-life balance needs to be protected. Family life needs to be sustainable, and this will be best achieved in a family-friendly economy rather than expecting families to configure themselves in an economy-friendly way.’
Often because the family is spending so little time together, the parents buy into consumerism (‘Consumerism is damaging families, Christian researchers discover,’ www.christianvoice.org.uk, 26 March 2014). It is a perpetual spiral as, in order to populate the child’s life with increasing numbers of goods, the parent must work ever increasing hours which results in these very children experiencing higher levels of anxiety and depression. It is what Diane Abbot MP, the shadow minister for public health, has called ‘McParenting,’ where parents try to compensate for their lack of parental involvement by buying consumer goods for their children.
The problem has become so serious that a United Nations report discovered that British parents are trapping their children in a cycle of ‘compulsive consumerism’ with the persistent giving of toys and designer labels instead of spending time with them.
It is often with the latest gadgets or fashions that parents shower their offspring in order to attempt to assuage their feelings of guilt. The mentality that has originated in children for the latest and the best can often follow that child into adulthood.
Robin Philips, the lead researcher for Christian Voice, observed: ‘Our research suggests our disposable culture has left deep imprints in the cadences of how our minds approach relationships, including marriage and family life.’
Mr Philips added: ‘As we prize what is new over what is lasting and permanent, we become easily bored with the fixities of our environment.’
Bill Doherty, a family therapist, has sent a warning that family members are less inclined to spend time together when electronic devices are available. Ironically, social media (such as Facebook and Twitter) that were developed to assist us in connecting together can often end up separating family members physically.
In contrast, the report ‘Transitioning to Adulthood; The role of supportive relationships and regular religious involvement’ (Terzian MA et al, Child Trends number 2014-20, May 2014) found that young adults who, as adolescents, had a close and caring relationship with at least one parent had a higher likelihood of experiencing less problems during their late teens and twenties. Those same young adults who perceived that their teachers cared and/or had a weekly religious involvement also had a greater likelihood of lower-risk transactions into adulthood.
We have an obligation to ensure that children have the best upbringing, without any harm coming to them as we have been ordered by Jesus (Luke 17: 2).
It is by bringing God into the situation that is the best model (Deuteronomy 4: 9; 6: 7; 11: 19; Psalm 76: 5). It is the important that children ‘remember your Creator in the days of your youth’. (Ecclesiastes 12: 1)
There is the encouragement to build into a child’s life so that they will benefit as they go into adolescence and adulthood – ‘Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.’ (Proverbs 22: 6)
Children are a gift from God and it is this preciousness that should be enhanced. In all our communication, we should be encouraging them so that they will pass on positive messages to future generations.
Comments