SOME politicians blame single mothers for a host of society鈥檚 ills. But the
latest research shows that children from single-parent homes often get off to a
good start in life鈥攁nd if they don鈥檛, the main factor seems to be their
mothers鈥� level of education, not the absence of a father.
In Britain, one in five children is born into a home where their mother is
not living with a male partner. In the US, the figure is almost one in three.
And some research has backed the popular impression that children raised by lone
parents are more likely to do badly in school than those from traditional
two-parent families.
Now Henry Ricciuti, a developmental psychologist at Cornell University in
Ithaca, New York, has completed one of the largest and best-controlled studies
into the issue. He concludes that much of the previous work is misleading,
because it confuses the effects of lone parenthood with that of the mothers鈥�
level of education and their coping skills.
Advertisement
Ricciuti tested 1700 children between six and eight years old whose mothers
were participating in a long-term, multiethnic study of young people. Children
raised by lone mothers did just as well on vocabulary, reading and mathematics
as those from two-parent families. And the single mothers didn鈥檛 report any more
behavioural problems in their youngsters than mothers living with a partner
(Journal of Family Psychology, vol 13, p 450). 鈥淚 did not find any
evidence for single parenthood being a risk in its own right,鈥� Ricciuti says.
鈥淭he question is, how come?鈥�
When Ricciuti looked at single-parent families in more detail, he found that
two factors predicted how well the youngsters did in school: their mothers鈥�
education and their 鈥済eneral ability鈥�, based on a standard measure of
problem-solving skills.
The children Ricciuti studied all had relatively young mothers鈥攐n
average, they had given birth at 20 years old. In contrast to some previous
studies, there was no tendency for the mothers living with a partner to have
spent longer in education and have had their children later.
The single-parent families did differ in one important way: more than half of
them fell below the poverty line, twice the rate of the two-parent families.
Since many other studies have found that poorer children do worse on tests of
their educational attainment and have more behaviour problems, Ricciuti鈥檚
results are even more surprising. 鈥淎lthough these mothers are much poorer, their
children are still not showing bad effects,鈥� he says. Ricciuti concludes that a
mother鈥檚 level of education and her coping skills can outweigh the effects of
poverty, at least for younger children.
Marsha Weinraub, a developmental psychologist at Temple University in
Philadelphia, applauds Ricciuti鈥檚 findings. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e important because they fly
in the face of our stereotypes and easy explanations,鈥� she says. She has done
smaller studies and obtained similar results. 鈥淎t least until they enter school,
these kids don鈥檛 seem to be different from children in two-parent families.鈥�
Weinraub says it鈥檚 not clear whether this remains the case as children get
older. 鈥淪omething may happen to these kids after they enter school,鈥� she says.
鈥淏ut it鈥檚 dangerous to conclude that they are automatically at risk.鈥�