Day Care

[J-Mann]

It does depend on the situation and the provider, of course, but generally I see day care as a negative thing, mostly because we're inventing day care where it really doesn't exist nowadays, ie: in classrooms, preschools, playdates, etc.

Far too many parents today view their children as a burden rather than a blessing.  They're willing to send them to preschool when they're two or three years old, not because it enriches the kids' lives, but because it's an easy form of day care for the parent.  Many parents are content to let television do the parenting, or a teacher take care of their children, rather than putting forth the effort required to be a decent parent.

[J-Mann]

Very good comments as always J-Mann. 

I find that many of the "day care is wonderful" type people have no idea what raising kids is really all about.  They think of it as simply babysitting, as in keeping them occupied and from playing in the street for a few hours.  There seems to be little appreciation from these people of how much time goes into teaching kids about life, providing guidance, character development, etc.  This is something that must be done primarily by parents, and if they're never around or around very little, their kids are going to be at a big deficit.

I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to do these things if both parents work and the kid is in day care.  But the need for it should be recognized, and the pro-day care feminist types generally do not recognize this need.

Good points.  Also, I really resent the prevailing notion that schools are becoming more and more responsible for taking care of children in the ways of watching them during the day and feeding them, but they are stripped of the ability to teach basic and universal morality as well as adequately discipline children.

[J-Mann]

I dislike the terms, or institution "day care" if that's all that's going on- caring for the child. If we are talking preschool, where the teachers are college trained educators, I feel they can have a positive influence. My wife works at home, and our son goes two days each week. (incidentally, at the preschool she taught at for nine years, so we feel good about it, and it's a cooperative, so parents basically determine schools policies.) He didn't start til he was almost three. We were prepared for her to keep him at home for the first several years, but thought it was good for both of them if he broadened his horisons and spent time with other kids several days a week. We are quite pleased.

Preschool can be a positive experience -- I know that much, even though I didn't go to it myself.  But I really don't like the trend to send children at a younger and younger age.  My niece started preschool shortly after she turned three...first it was "playschool," then preschool, now kindergarten.  It's just too much.  These kids will have school for at least 13 years; they don't need to get an early start.

My dad worked a full-time job and my mom worked part-time when I was in my most formative years, between birth and six-years-old when I started kindergarten.  I remember both of them spending a lot of time with me in the evenings and on weekends to help me learn to read, write, tie my shoes, speak properly...all of those necessities. Instead of choosing to spend their free time on themselves, they spent it with me.  Now they weren't perfect parents, but they put the time into my development that I wish more parents today would bother to put into their own children.

This trend to get children out of the house and outsource their foundational educations is worrisome.

[J-Mann]

I think people on this board are making an incorrect assumption that rich people are actually keeping kids at home and taking care of them on their own. Many rich people are MORE likely to send kids to preschool and MORE likely to hire a nanny.

I'm not making that misconception at all.  I think rich people are more likely to leave the raising of kids to a paid nanny or day care.  Poorer people are more likely to shove the responsibilities onto school systems.

[J-Mann]

I dislike the terms, or institution "day care" if that's all that's going on- caring for the child. If we are talking preschool, where the teachers are college trained educators, I feel they can have a positive influence. My wife works at home, and our son goes two days each week. (incidentally, at the preschool she taught at for nine years, so we feel good about it, and it's a cooperative, so parents basically determine schools policies.) He didn't start til he was almost three. We were prepared for her to keep him at home for the first several years, but thought it was good for both of them if he broadened his horisons and spent time with other kids several days a week. We are quite pleased.

Preschool can be a positive experience -- I know that much, even though I didn't go to it myself.  But I really don't like the trend to send children at a younger and younger age.  My niece started preschool shortly after she turned three...first it was "playschool," then preschool, now kindergarten.  It's just too much.  These kids will have school for at least 13 years; they don't need to get an early start.

My dad worked a full-time job and my mom worked part-time when I was in my most formative years, between birth and six-years-old when I started kindergarten.  I remember both of them spending a lot of time with me in the evenings and on weekends to help me learn to read, write, tie my shoes, speak properly...all of those necessities. Instead of choosing to spend their free time on themselves, they spent it with me.  Now they weren't perfect parents, but they put the time into my development that I wish more parents today would bother to put into their own children.

This trend to get children out of the house and outsource their foundational educations is worrisome.

[J-Mann]

Could you clarify this? What are you basing this on? What do you consider a "good percentage?" This seems an incredible generalization or stereotype with little basis in fact.

 I can see you and J-Mann are both smearing the poor with terms like "leave the raising of kids" to describe the rich and "shove the responsibilities" to describe the poor (J-Mann) and yours: "option of hiring a nanny" to the rich and "dump their parenting job" for the poor.

Why is this loaded language being used against the poor? Because of taxes?

I'm opposed to rich and poor alike who don't take primary responsibility for raising their children, or believe it is someone else's job to be their primary caregivers.  My family wasn't poor, but we were far from rich -- my parents still found the time to be primary caregivers and educators early on in my life. 

My point is that some rich folks will pay to pass off caregiving onto a nanny, etc., who cannot instill discipline or morality, but just give care.  These kids normally end up really spoiled and self-important.

Non-wealthy who pass off caregiving to schools are in the same boat -- educators cannot instill morals or discipline.  These parents come to expect full care services from schools but resent it when their children are disciplined or have someone elses ethical teachings pushed towards their kids.

[J-Mann]

But that doesn't answer the question of why your choices of phrases seems much more maligning to the poor.

Possibly because that's the sort of irresponsible parents that I am more familiar with.  We don't have many so-called rich parents where I'm from, though we've got a few.  The problems I am more familiar with are far-and-away the poorer parents who shirk their responsibilities in parenting.