<p>To the OP:
If you’re seriously interested in understanding the research that’s been done on the relationship between the employment of the mother and the academic achievement of the children, you can find dozens of studies on Google Scholar: [Maternal</a> employment and children’s academic achievement - Google Scholar](<a href=“Google Scholar”>Google Scholar). Most of these studies were done in the 1980s and 1990s, and the results are mixed. In other words, there are no clear cut differences between the academic achievement of children in homes where the mother works and in homes where the mother is a “full-time mom.” </p>
<p>My husband and I both work, as do many of the other families we know in our area. I haven’t seen any differences in the college admission outcomes of families with working or stay-at-home parents. Our daughter was admitted to every school to which she applied and is now a senior at MIT. Our son was admitted to 6 of the 9 schools to which he applied and is now a freshman at Willamette.</p>
<p>I stayed home with my kids so I’d like to think that made a big difference but amongst the kids in my kids’ hs classes that had the most “success” in college admissions (getting accepted into highly ranked school) were mostly kids with working moms. These moms had some pretty high end jobs, physicians, one pharmacist who did very specialized hospital pharmacy, professors, attorneys, which tells me that the kids were successful due to inherited brilliance more than anything else.</p>
<p>“Does any one have any published data to correlate college admission to whether a parent staying home. In other words, is there any data suggest children do better if one of the parents stay home during children’s pre-college years. “Better” is defined by test score, hours of E/C, GPA, etc.”</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question. It never would have occurred to me to make the choice of staying home or working while my kids grew up based on what test scores or GPAs they might receive later on. The decision H and I made together, was for me to stay home and raise our kids. It was something I felt very strongly about and our decision had everything to do with me wanting to teach and nurture them in as many ways as possible for as long as possible. My hope was that they would grow up to be decent human beings with good values and morals and contribute in a positive way to society. (not because I stayed home, just in general.) If they did well in school, it would be a bonus. I fully support others who have different feelings and have made different choices. I know plenty of families where both parents worked and their kids are as fantastic as mine, no question about it. I think each couple should decide together what will work for them. And then revisit the decision frequently because things in life change in unexpected ways all the time. </p>
<p>(I was fortunate to stay home with my kids for 17 years. I have three kids, the oldest now in college. I have advanced degrees and never regretted giving up a promising career path to be home with my kids. for what it’s worth. )</p>
<p>I have always believed that school success depended more on how involved the parents were in the lives of their children, and by this I mean how engaged or interested they are, and not how controlling they are or how many hours a day they are at home. Then again, as a single parent, I never had the luxury of staying at home to begin with…</p>
<p>Here is a link to a recent article about a study done by a Psychology professor at Univ of Notre Dame on the effect of family relationships and the success of students in school. His research involves younger children, so does not relate to factors effecting college admissions. His general theory is that the quality of the family relationship can be a predictor of school success. He describes 3 types of families:</p>
<p>Cummings has also done extensive research on the emotional effects of marital conflict on children. Presumably families with a lot of marital conflict would not produce the “cohesive family” he writes about. Similarly, a family with a stay-at-home parent does not automatically lead to a “cohesive family” - eeven though there may be a greater chance of this. </p>
<p>There really is no answer to Dad II’s question, but perhaps, as this study suggests, the parents might want to consider how the family would be effected if one parent stays at home, and whether it would result in stress or conflict that could have a negative impact on the children in the family, and thus on their school performance.</p>
<p>Dad II, I don’t think you’ll find a correlation because there are too many variables involved (welfare mother vs soccer mom), but statistics don’t apply to individuals, so any correlation or lack thereof would be meaningless anyway.</p>
<p>For my part, I was a stay-home dad with an advanced degree for eight years (starting when my kids were 3 and 1 years old). During that time I spent countless volunteer hours at their schools, and that’s what made the difference. A stay-home parent who stays home won’t have the same impact as one who stays involved. I left a $50k job to stay home with my kids, so we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income, but it was the best decision I ever made. If I had it all to do over again I would have quit my job earlier than I did.</p>
<p>I believe that parenting and family dynamics are more important than the employment status of the parents in regards to children doing better generally.</p>
<p>Children who grow up in a loving, caring, encouraging, positive and supportive family environment would have higher self-esteem, more self-confidence and healthier attitude to deal with life in general.</p>
<p>Parental support and involvement are very important. Know what is going on at school, who the child’s friends are, talk with the child, spend time with the child, involve in the activities that require parent participation, and be there for the child. The parents’ presence do make a point to the child: you matter.</p>
<p>Not every stay at home parents will always be there for the child.
Working parents will find time to be there for the child if they care enough.</p>
<p>Growing up in a poor and adverse environment, it was his mother’s love, support and encouragement that helped Dr. Ben Carson to be who he is today.</p>
<p>I think this family has to consider what they want, what their children and families need and what they can afford. Some people have a lot of flexibility in their jobs and can attend lots of school events. Some children may have special needs or special talents that would benefit from a lot of parental involvement. Some parents really want to stay home. I don’t think this decision should just be made based on gpa. After all, what if your coworker’s wife stays home and the child grows up to attend State U? Will her dh then think she hasn’t fulfilled her part of the bargain?</p>
<p>I think the mother in this case should decide what is best for her. The kids will be okay, or not, based on other factors, primarily their own choices.</p>
<p>The mother and father need to make the decision. We’re through that period in life now, but we watched alot of marital strain with partners where one stayed home with the babies with the intention of returning to the workforce when the kids went to elementary school and suddenly the parent scheduled to go back to work did not want to. Not to mention the partner that has been out of the workforce 5-10 years had a tougher time finding a position the longer they are out of the workforce. It’s a decision both parents need to make. But this is secondary to the original question regarding whether one staying home produces “better” students.</p>
<p>As a stay-at-home mom, I’m sure I would never have had the energy to be as involved in my daughters’ education on a daily basis had I been working full-time. From reading and engaging intellectually with them, to chauffeuring them around to activities, I just wouldn’t have been been able to keep it up. I want to believe that they have really benefited and are better learners and more active for it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have often felt guilty that I was not a good role model for my girls professionally, as I hope they will aspire to successful careers in their chosen fields, I feel a little hypocritical having given up a promising path and honestly don’t know what their choice should or will be if they have kids.</p>
<p>I am a Stay at home Mom who homeschools. While there is plenty of data that homeschoolers in general (who usually have at least one parent staying home or at most one parent working only part time) do better in standardized testing than the average. That said, I think in general, the same kids I know in homeschooling who are doing very well in college admissions would probably be doing very well if the parents were working. THe exceptions are the kids who end up doing well in homeschool but who needed extra help (medical issues, Aspergers, LD, etc). Those kids are greatly served by having a parent around to help them.</p>
<p>My kids had fantastic test scores. It’s not because I work (which I do) or do not work. It’s because they were born bright. I think it’s also because they loved to read. Perhaps you can credit their preschool environment or parent reading/support, but I think it is more just part of who they are. </p>
<p>“As a stay-at-home mom, I’m sure I would never have had the energy to be as involved in my daughters’ education on a daily basis had I been working full-time. From reading and engaging intellectually with them, to chauffeuring them around to activities, I just wouldn’t have been been able to keep it up” - With the right job, a parent can still do most of those things. (Housecleaning can be a burden, but that is easy to hire out.) These kind of decisions are so family-specific and I think it is worthless to look for studies/data.</p>
<p>Agree. You’ll never be able to build a study that is meaningful. We’re not talking about ages 0-5 and if we were that is an entirely different discussion. We’re talking about is it meaningful to the kids intellectual growth to have a parent home from 3 PM on. Really. The kids leave for school when most parents leave for work. School is out mid-afternoon for most kids…working parents don’t get home until after 5 on. You are talking specifically about kids that don’t have afterschool ECs everyday and the impact of 3 or so hours each day and what they do with their time. Frankly the kids that need a parent home from 3-6 everyday probably are the kids that need extra attention and development help or are not participating in any ECs and need some structure and supervision.</p>
<p>I think another factor that would be hard to factor in is the quality of substitute care if there is no stay-at-home parent. Some nannies I have observed are essentially third parents, for example. Others, not so much. I’m sure the same is true of every other arrangement.</p>
<p>On a slightly different topic, it’s my personal observation that relatives of ours whose children got full-ride athletic scholarships at the Div I level – they couldn’t have done it without a) having the mother be at home for the extensive chauffeuring (to lessons, nutritionists, trainers) that their sport required and b) having a household income that was sufficient to enable the mother to travel with them to their many events all over the country and for a housekeeper to be hired to watch younger children during that time.</p>
<p>Indeed, the whole scene struck me as a shell game – Rich families, who could easily have afforded $50K a year for colleges, spending $45K a year (between travel, household help, coaches, trainers, nutritionists, etc.) to obtain scholarships worth $50K a year. There weren’t any poorer families being helped by these athletic scholarships, that’s for darn sure.</p>
<p>I think my h’s having a Ph.D in engineering, and my having a master’s in science/math education and both of us having a huge belief in the importance of education has had the most to do with how are kids are doing, besides their innate intellectual capacity which they were born with. We are enormously involved from the very beginning with “learning.” ( I can still remember my h reading sports illlustrated to my two week old son because he wanted to read something he enjoyed). I also remember being in the car and driving from a restaurant and playing math games, having the kids figure out the tip off differing amounts at 15, 18, or 20%. We also played math games in Target or Sears or anyplace else we saw 30% off signs and had them figure out … so what’s a better deal, buy one get one half off … or (fill in the blank). It was part of our everyday life, just like going to museums and historical battlefields on vacation. I was a stay at home Mom, but we would have done these same things whether I had been or not. So, not sure how this can all be figured out statistically.</p>
<p>zebes, whose d is a sophomore majoring in chemical engineering and whose s will be graduating with a B.A. in economics and is applying to law school.</p>
<p>Based on the average American’s savings, I think your family was a little unusual to be actively planning for that when your children were so young. </p>
<p>I was 22 when my son was born and his father left for a six month deployment ten days after he was born. We knew that it was just going to be the first in a series of long absences. So we made the decision that I would stay-home to provide him with one very stable caretaker. We lived in a trailer park and contributed nothing to savings during our son’s first five years. </p>
<p>In other words, we were unwilling to face the long-term at that time because the day-to-day was so consuming; although we certainly should have given it at least a little thought.</p>
<p>Dad II - If she were my daughter and asked my advice, I would tell her to go back to work - the kid’s will be alright.
The overall advantages to the family, financial wise are enormous. The parents will be able to provide many more meaningful experience that would nurture them. If they plan it, they will also be able to save for college. Trust me - money in the bank for college trumps financial aid any day. Since the family’s income will be higher - their SAT scores will be higher as well.
Somehow, the activities, carpool and homework will work themselves out.</p>
but amongst the kids in my kids’ hs classes that had the most “success” in college admissions (getting accepted into highly ranked school) were mostly kids with working moms. These moms had some pretty high end jobs, physicians, one pharmacist who did very specialized hospital pharmacy, professors, attorneys, which tells me that the kids were successful due to inherited brilliance more than anything else.</p>