Introduction
It is widely accepted that the environment an individual is exposed to invariably influence their development and future behavior. Homes remain the principal nurturing environments for most children. Thus, the stability and conduciveness of such environments are extremely vital to proper development of children. And yet home environments significantly vary; while some are characterized by stability and routine, others are notorious with change. This paper, through exploring prior research findings, examines the effects of different home environments on child development.
The preponderance of research findings has underscored the primacy of home environments as formative spaces. A problematic homestead has the potential to disrupt a child’s brain’s response mechanism, lower the quality of care a child gets and hamper healthy development. A host of developmental challenges can be associated with an unhealthy home environment. Some of these include impaired cognitive development, aggression, depression and anxiety, late language development, behavioral problems during adulthood, poor school performance amongst others (Lanza) . Research also indicates Long term effects such as poor rate of graduation, early parenthood and the dismal performance of work have a direct linkage to conditions an individual experienced in the course of growth. Research in brain imaging suggests that being brought up in a disadvantaged environment may lead to different or abnormal brain development. For instance, growth development in an environment of poverty and chaos can affect the stress response mechanism in in the brain leading to chronic illness during adulthood (Dubow and Huesman) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Studies have established different brain activity, and development patterns between children brought up in varying socioeconomic status. These patterns manifest themselves in language ability, memory, emotional development and learning capacity. Low-income homes are likely going to hinder proper child development in multiple ways. Low-income parents, for instance, are on average likely going to be less responsive, less affectionate to their infant’s desires or distress calls, and likely to perpetuate rather harsh parenting styles. Poor homes are probably going to be more chaotic than well up families, and as such, children in such contexts suffer more stress. Mothers in such circumstances exhibit less cognitive stimulation and sensitivity.
Research suggests that the mother-child interaction among the poor is limited. They spend less time with their children as compared to those from middle-income families. Children from families low in the social hierarchy tend to spend less time with parents in stimulating experiences that contribute to brain development (Paxson) . The effects of such environments are traceable in the first years of growth and even in adulthood. In the first years of growth, they exhibit low cognitive performance and behavioral challenges. These problems transition, though in varying levels, into adulthood. Thus, the economic well-being of a family can be a predictor of childhood behavior and adult well-being (Chandra and Griffin) .
Levels of education in a home also strongly impacts child development. Better educated parents are more likely going to create conducive home environments. Some researchers have contended that maternal education is a better predictor of quality of child development than even family income. A study in brain imaging in children suggested that having learned mothers had measurable effects on children’s regions of the brain involved in learning and attention skills. Another study suggested a direct relationship between parental education and occupational success of the children. When maternal education was improved, there were notable improvements in home environments and thus improvements in areas like language development in children. Parental education, some have contended, is of particular importance for children from low-income or single parent families (Dubow and Huesman) .
Part of the home environment is the health of parents. Maternal depression and personality disorders spell danger for the healthy development of a child. Postpartum depression is especially common for women after childbirth. In fact, most women experience moments of depression days or weeks after birth. National research suggests that 10-15% of mothers are victims of major depression often for six months or longer. Symptoms of such depression include feelings of guilt, sleep disturbances and loss of interest in activities. Depressed mothers spend considerably less amounts of time talking or touching their babies. Their interactions with infants can, as a matter of fact, be negative than they are positive. Depression and presence of a disorder invariably affect parenting styles. If overlooked or untreated, they are likely to have adverse implications for the development of the child (Ricciuti) .
Family structure constitutes an important element of the home environment. Children brought up in families with two parents are likely going to receive better care and attention from them thus better development. However, most children are today victims of divorce and shifts from one family environment to the other as remarriages take place. The sociologist, Paul Amato, contends that the decline in the number of children brought up in households belonging to their biological parents is one of the most profound changes that has taken place in America. In 1960, about 88% of children lived with both parents compared to 68% in 2007. Also, in 1960, roughly 5% of all children were born outside marriages. That figure had skyrocketed to 38% in the year 2006. Demographers estimate that today, at least one in two children spend some part or whole of their childhood in single-parent families (Paxson) . These changes have a bearing on the development of children. As noted earlier, children brought up in intact families tend to have better emotional, behavioral and cognitive outcomes. The structural changes witnessed in families over the last four decades have thus affected adolescent and children wellbeing. Nowhere have these effects been more visible than in educational performance. In the year 2002, roughly 7 million children in America between 12 and 18 years repeated a grade. Amato contends that at least 300,000 of these children would not have repeated classes if the changes from two parent families to one parent family had not been witnessed in the period 1980-2002. He further contends that about a million children would not have repeated by 2002 if the trend observed from 1960 had been reversed (Ricciuti) .
Social scientists have argued over the past years that family structures affect school outcomes from the lowest levels to college. It is worth pointing out that family structure can influence school outcome directly or through mediating factors. The latter would include factors like family resources such as money and time, parental characteristics and family dynamics which are related to different family forms. Thus, the outcome may be a direct result of family structure or the interplay of both direct and indirect factors. Nevertheless, the family structure as an independent factor does influence child development.
Childhood environment contributes to eventual school readiness. A child wellbeing study conducted from amongst 1370 mothers who were in a continuous marriage or engaged in cohabitation from the birth of a child to the age of three found out that three-year-olds born by cohabiting parents exhibited aggression, withdrawal, anxiety and depression than kids born in married others. Aggression and withdrawal were explained by differences in income while depression and anxiety by cohabitation effect (Lanza) . Other studies indicate that reading to children helps build their literacy development. Preschool children and toddlers in intact families are able to read more times than their peers in single families. A study of 11,000 kindergarteners in intact and non-intact families revealed that children under married parents tended to have higher achievement scores than their peers in stepparent or cohabiting families (Dubow and Huesman) .
Research on family structures further demonstrates these effects are visible even in elementary and secondary education. These studies found out that first graders from intact families were less likely to be involved in disorderly behavior with peers and teachers compared to those from single or cohabiting mothers. Those between the ages of 3-12 living in intact families tended to have higher math scores. Those between the age 6 and 12 within intact families, on average, tended to be more engaged in school work than peers in single or step-parent families. 9th grades born intact families have a higher likelihood of completing a mathematics test compared to their peers with single parents. High school and middle school students that suffer parental divorce have a higher risk of failing a course even a year later compared to their peers in stable family circumstances. Amongst high and middle school students, the amount of childhood spent in non-intact families can be linked to declines in GPA. In instances of single mothers having a cohabiting partner, there was a greater chance of expulsion or suspension from school at that time or in future. All these findings suggest a causal relationship between family structure and healthy growth (Paxson) .
Research also suggests that these effects last well beyond high school into young adulthood. Throughout college entrance examinations, students from non-intact families would appear to fall behind contemporaries from intact families. Nationally representative studies have reported childhood life in single or blended families has an adverse effect on college attendance and even graduation. Though parental income and education could be used to explain the relationship between single parent families and lower levels of college attendance and graduation, the disparities in outcomes persisted between children from intact families and blended families (Lanza) .
Equally as important as the family structure is parental involvement within the home environment. While some parents are withdrawn from the activities of their children, others are intimately involved. For instance, some parents participate in monitoring the activities their children engage at home and even outside. Some parents set rules to govern behavior, engage in conversation about what may be troubling their children, seek to find out their educational expectations, helping them in doing their homework, reading to their children and asking them to come up with solutions to develop their decision-making capacities. A multidimensional involvement in the life of a child significantly contributes to their development (Ricciuti) .
Research indicates that there are a number of factors that determine the level of parental involvement. A primary influence is the family structure. Studies suggest that parents in intact families are more likely going to get involved in the lives of their children than those that are single. This might be attributable to strains that come with being a single parent such as the need to work more to provide for the family. Single parenthood may also take a toll on the mental or emotional wellbeing of an individual limiting their ability to get involved their children’s affairs (Chandra and Griffin) .
The impact of parental involvement can be seen at multiple levels. Studies suggest that warm, sensitive and responsive parents tend to have children exhibiting high emotional development, ability to focus and relatively good communication skills. They show and demonstrate school readiness pretty early and engage in art and craft with peers at a young age. One study linked them with persistence, motivation to learn, attention, receptive vocabulary and fewer conduct challenges.
Parental involvement also aids in establishing the presence of an abnormality during the development of a child. Early detection creates room for medical intervention without unnecessarily aggravating a situation. Perhaps more important is the psychological impact of involvement on the child. Children feel a sense of responsibility to conform to parental guidelines unlike in instances when a parent is withdrawn (Dubow and Huesman) . Not surprisingly, parents participating in the lives of their children are less likely to contend with serious cases of deviance, especially during adolescence. Home environment must however not be limited to the influence of parents on children. It must incorporate the role of relatives, friends and other individuals a child is in constant interaction with. The quality of such interactions influences development. The presence of siblings, for instance, has the effect of shaping how active or inactive a child is likely to be. Beyond individuals, interactions with gadgets such as television invariably impact on the child.
Conclusion.
The quality of children’s early environment is of critical importance in achieving a healthy child development. A healthy environment often means reducing or averting the possibility future gaps children that may manifest themselves at a later stage of growth. Policy efforts such as those geared towards increasing education performance must thus take into consideration the influences of home environments; the recognition that there is an intersection between family policy, fiscal policy and education policy. To this extent, they must aim at increasing parental education and their level of income. They must also invest in the identification and subsequent treatment of new mothers suffering from cases of depression or personality disorders. Overall, parents are the greatest influencers of the quality of child development.
Works cited
Chandra, Shih and A Griffin. "Birth outcomes in the conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood." (2012).
Dubow, E and Boxer Huesman. "Longterm effects of parents' education on children's educational and ocupational success." Merrill-Palmer Quartely (2009): 224-235.
Lanza, T. "Modelling Multiple Risks During Infancy to Predict Quality of the Caregiving Environment." Infant Behavior& Development (2011): 370-389.
Paxson, Berger. "Income and Child Development." Children and Youth Services Review (2009): 978-987.
Ricciuti, Evans. "Crowding and Cogntive development.The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness among 36 Month Old Children ." Environment and Behavior (2010): 133-149.
