Daycare-update

[Bluegoat]

Kids of various ages who are siblings are a different issue: 

1) the horrified parent of the biter is the same as the horrified parent of the bitten child.  Way less stress on the caregiver.

2) biting is a phase that is usually age-specific and short-lived.  But in a room full of 2yos, unchecked biting is likely to be copied by others and become an epidemic.  In a typical family home, you don't have a roomful of kids who are all at the age when biting can become a habit.

 

This seems like it might e a good way to try and manage it in a daycare.  There is no reason single aged rooms have to be the norm.

[Bluegoat]

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you are all saying, daycare is a cheap %$#@*& way to warehouse kids without giving proper care, therefore they need to be able to expel problems.

 

I have a real problem with that.

[EmseB]

If one of my kids was a biter, I'd keep them with me all the time. Tomato staking is what some would call it. Group care doesn't really allow for this. What I wouldnt do is I wouldn't allow him to continue to bite in the name of developmentally normal, anymore than I would allow him to take toys from his siblings or hit them because he hasn't learned to share.

[Catwoman]

How do they know from a waiting list which kids are "easier"? How do they know which kids will and won't bite?

 

And now we're just getting into ridiculous minutae of possible scenarios.

 

I don't even use daycare. If I did I'd prefer one set of policies re biting and you'd prefer another. To each their own.

I agree with you.

 

Nobody wants to hear about little kids being expelled from daycare. In an ideal world, all daycare centers would be equipped to accommodate all children and they would still be able to charge reasonable rates for their services. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic expectation.

[Catwoman]

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you are all saying, daycare is a cheap %$#@*& way to warehouse kids without giving proper care, therefore they need to be able to expel problems.

 

I have a real problem with that.

But nobody has said anything remotely like that.

[Bluegoat]

How do they know from a waiting list which kids are "easier"? How do they know which kids will and won't bite?

 

And now we're just getting into ridiculous minutae of possible scenarios.

 

I don't even use daycare. If I did I'd prefer one set of policies re biting and you'd prefer another. To each their own.

 

Well, they don't.

 

If you have one leave, you slot in another.  If it's a problem kid, you punt it.

 

As long as there is a shortage of spots, and they are allowed to give a minimum level of care, there won't really be much reason for them to make an effort if they don't want to.

 

This means the less expensive centres are always going to be a bit of a race to the bottom.

[SKL]

This seems like it might e a good way to try and manage it in a daycare.  There is no reason single aged rooms have to be the norm.

 

Yes there is a reason.  The state regulations vary by age.  If you have all the kids together, they are regulated by the rules for the youngest age.

 

Could those rules be changed, maybe, but that isn't in the power of the daycare workers.

[EmseB]

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you are all saying, daycare is a cheap %$#@*& way to warehouse kids without giving proper care, therefore they need to be able to expel problems.

 

I have a real problem with that.

 

You're attributing malice where there isn't any. I'm not sure why, but I have no I'll intent towards kids who have trouble with group care, or act out in certain scenarios. I don't think other kids should be subject to injury because of that. In other words, if the behavior can't be stopped using the means a daycare has available, then the other kids should

 

I don't understand why you're being so defensive about this. I'm for most kids not getting bitten or being victims of biting. That is HARD to manage in a group care situation. It just is. We simply have different perspectives on how best to handle it.

Edited September 25, 2017 by EmseB

[SKL]

Honestly, it kind of sounds like you are all saying, daycare is a cheap %$#@*& way to warehouse kids without giving proper care, therefore they need to be able to expel problems.

 

I have a real problem with that.

 

I think you need to get your hearing checked if that is what you are hearing.

 

Thanks for another insult.

 

[Bluegoat]

But nobody has said anything remotely like that.

 

Kids who are biters can't be given the care they need at the price point.

 

It's a stressful environment so if the kids can't manage, its not good for them.

 

Some kids can't do well in that kind of care with so many kids.

 

If they provide a more appropriate level of care, training and supervision, it is too expensive, who will pay for that.

 

Since they can't give that level of care they need to be able to expel kids, in fact the other parents want them to so their kids will be safe.

 

Those kids need be at home with a parent, or in an in-home situation, so they can receive adequate care - presumably with all the costs that would entail.

 

Really - what is that other than daycare is cheap because they provide a fairly low level of care, and you get what you pay for?

[Catwoman]

Kids who are biters can't be given the care they need at the price point.

 

It's a stressful environment so if the kids can't manage, its not good for them.

 

Some kids can't do well in that kind of care with so many kids.

 

If they provide a more appropriate level of care, training and supervision, it is too expensive, who will pay for that.

 

Since they can't give that level of care they need to be able to expel kids, in fact the other parents want them to so their kids will be safe.

 

Those kids need be at home with a parent, or in an in-home situation, so they can receive adequate care - presumably with all the costs that would entail.

 

Really - what is that other than daycare is cheap because they provide a fairly low level of care, and you get what you pay for?

But what's the realistic solution?

 

You can want a perfect and educational and nurturing and wonderful and safe and blissful environment for every child, but who is going to pay for it? How can daycares provide everything you expect and still manage to stay in business?

[SKL]

Kids who are biters can't be given the care they need at the price point.

 

It's a stressful environment so if the kids can't manage, its not good for them.

 

Some kids can't do well in that kind of care with so many kids.

 

If they provide a more appropriate level of care, training and supervision, it is too expensive, who will pay for that.

 

Since they can't give that level of care they need to be able to expel kids, in fact the other parents want them to so their kids will be safe.

 

Those kids need be at home with a parent, or in an in-home situation, so they can receive adequate care - presumably with all the costs that would entail.

 

Really - what is that other than daycare is cheap because they provide a fairly low level of care, and you get what you pay for?

 

What I hear from the discussion is that while Daycare is structured to accommodate a range that includes most children, there are some children who need a different kind of environment.

 

The fact that some kids don't thrive in daycare does not change the fact that many, perhaps the large majority, can / do thrive there.

 

Daycare was an excellent situation for my kids.

 

[SKL]

The fact is that part of being a parent is dealing with those times when our individual child can't benefit from the standard arrangements created for kids.  We all have times when the standard doesn't work well.  Either our kid is too sick, to big, too small, too smart, too challenged, too active, too tired, too aggressive, too shy.  We deal with it.

 

Unfortunately it is sometimes very difficult to deal with it.  I'm a single mom too - I know it's no picnic.  But it's still our responsibility to find what does work for our child.

[EmseB]

Kids who are biters can't be given the care they need at the price point.

 

Group care is cheaper than one on one care.  That is pure economics.  If you're paying for daycare, you're paying for group care.  If you want a nanny or one on one support, that is more expensive because the cost is not distributed among families.  If a biter requires one on one care in order to not bite others, group care may not be able to provide this because it is group care.  That's the definition of group care! One person caring for a group of kids. Why is that malicious? Again, we're not talking about one bite or developmentally appropriate behavior.  We're talking about biting that cannot be managed reasonably in a group care situation.

 

It's a stressful environment so if the kids can't manage, its not good for them.

 

Group care is stressful for some kids.  Some toddlers do really poorly away from their mothers.  This isn't a value judgment, it's just the way some kids are wired. Just like some kids thrive in a group of peers.

 

Some kids can't do well in that kind of care with so many kids.

 

Same as above.

 

If they provide a more appropriate level of care, training and supervision, it is too expensive, who will pay for that.

 

What do you define as more appropriate?  I have yet to see what you think should be done with a repetitive biter in a group care model?  A lot of daycare workers are trained on what to do with biting or aggressive behavior.

 

Since they can't give that level of care they need to be able to expel kids, in fact the other parents want them to so their kids will be safe.

 

If a child can't be trusted not to bite after multiple attempts at correcting the behavior, what should be done? If a child is enrolled in a daycare, does that mean the parents are absolved from every having to find a more appropriate place if group care doesn't work out for that child?

 

Those kids need be at home with a parent, or in an in-home situation, so they can receive adequate care - presumably with all the costs that would entail.

 

So you're acknowledging here that one-on-one care is expensive and maybe prohibitive for the parents, so the daycare should bear those costs in order to keep the child in the group setting without the other kids getting hurt, but the parents of the child should not have to pay to give what you call "adequate care" by staying home or getting an aide or nanny?  You're saying the group situation should be adequate for all kids?

 

Yes, in home care is more expensive than daycare.  Again, this is not malicious, but a simple economic reality.  Parents are ultimately responsible for finding appropriate care for their kids if the group model doesn't work.

 

Really - what is that other than daycare is cheap because they provide a fairly low level of care, and you get what you pay for?

 

It's the reality of a group care situation and economics.  I have worked in a daycare.  It is less expensive than home care not because it is a "warehouse" (your words), but because fewer workers care for more kids and the costs are distributed.  This ratio puts limits on the level of care that providers are able to give.  This doesn't mean the care is bad or poor or low level. Certainly one teacher working with six kids is not as individulaized as one teacher working with one kid.  Again, this isn't saying that one teacher for six kids is poor care, but it isn't the right model for all kids.  For some kids the group care model doesn't work for various reasons -- medical, psychological, behavioral. This is not a judgement on the kids or the level of care, but rather saying that kids are people who don't respond to all situations well.  Who is ultimately responsible for finding suitable care or making arrangements for their kids?  Often a parent signs a contract with the daycare outlining their policy on aggressive and violent behavior.  No one is advocating for throwing 2yos out on their tail for a first offense.  It's if the behavior cannot be managed in a group care situation and goes beyond what is developmentally appropriate.

 

I don't understand what you're advocating for here.  What would be a solution to a kid who could not stop acting out and hurting other kids despite attempting different ways of making the environment more suitable or providing more care? What does the group care model look like for a child that's repeatedly hurting the other kids?  Or are you saying that the daycare itself is to blame if a child is able to hurt other kids more than once?

 

[EmseB]

Well, they don't.

 

If you have one leave, you slot in another.  If it's a problem kid, you punt it.

 

As long as there is a shortage of spots, and they are allowed to give a minimum level of care, there won't really be much reason for them to make an effort if they don't want to.

 

This means the less expensive centres are always going to be a bit of a race to the bottom.

 

 

Again, emotionally loaded language to put the daycare in the worst possible position.  They want to "punt" kids to provide "minimum care".  Okay.  If that's how you think of most daycares, then I can see how this would be a touchy subject.

OR, to put it in a more charitable light, it's in the interest of keeping all kids safe from known aggressive behavior and not allowing children to be bitten.  In that case, it would be a bit of a race to keep the environment violence-free and more harmonious for kids who do not like being bitten. Your definition of a minimum level of care and mine are different -- at a minimum, I would expect my kid not to be bitten by a known biter.  That is my minimum standard, for my kid to not be a victim of violence that would leave a mark.

 

You want to impugn the worst possible motives to the daycare when there is an entirely different side which is the kids being bitten, which hurts, sometimes a lot.  Perhaps their motives are to keep the most possible kids safe from being bitten?

 

If my kid had bitten multiple children or had bitten one kid more than once, I would not expect that he would be allowed to return to bite someone again.  I wouldn't allow it in my own home and I wouldn't expect it from a group care situation.

Edited September 25, 2017 by EmseB

[Bluegoat]

My solution would be that for kids exhibiting developmentally normal behaviours, the care was structured in such a way that workers could care for all those kids.  And also that there wouldn't be numbers of kids who were developmentally normal who were unable to thrive in those environments.  Not all would have to be the same, but there would be enough variety to accommodate the need.

 

Daycare for two-year olds should be able to give the right care for developmentally normal two-year olds.  And kids that age have a fair range of "normal".

 

Maybe that means changing the standards for that age group.  Maybe it means subsidizing care workers.  It likely means creating care spots so there are not waiting lists.

 

Concretely, they could look immediately at making smaller groups for care, mixed age groups, , classes moved up with the teachers, better training, like you tend to see in better care situations already.

 

Our main problem with this seems to be that we want to have most adults working, but we don't have a way to pay adequately for the care of all kids - which includes paying the providers properly.

 

I suppose another way would be to look at having some kind of parental leave until such an age when kids are more able to fit into a group care environment.

 

All kids deserve to be able to have the age-appropriate care.

[EmseB]

All kids deserve to be able to have the age-appropriate care.

 

I agree. I think parents have the ultimate responsibility for providing this, not any given daycare they delegate that particular responsibility to for a season.

[Bluegoat]

Again, emotionally loaded language to put the daycare in the worst possible position.  They want to "punt" kids to provide "minimum care".  Okay.  If that's how you think of most daycares, then I can see how this would be a touchy subject.

OR, to put it in a more charitable light, it's in the interest of keeping all kids safe from known aggressive behavior and not allowing children to be bitten.  In that case, it would be a bit of a race to keep the environment violence-free and more harmonious for kids who do not like being bitten. Your definition of a minimum level of care and mine are different -- at a minimum, I would expect my kid not to be bitten by a known biter.  That is my minimum standard, for my kid to not be a victim of violence that would leave a mark.

 

You want to impugn the worst possible motives to the daycare when there is an entirely different side which is the kids being bitten, which hurts, sometimes a lot.  Perhaps their motives are to keep the most possible kids safe from being bitten?

 

If my kid had bitten multiple children or had bitten one kid more than once, I would not expect that he would be allowed to return to bite someone again.  I wouldn't allow it in my own home and I wouldn't expect it from a group care situation.

 

It would be emotive if there weren't actually a fair number of poor daycares.

 

The more expensive ones can afford to do a lot more.  But the cheaper ones can't.  

 

Yet if you have waiting lists for all, it simply enables the minimum - there will always be places that will offer the minimum level of care, maybe because they don't really care - some corporate places are rather like that - but it also may be because they can't afford to do more.

 

The idea that a good standard of care will be ensured because parents will demand it by where they place their kids really depends on their being enough spots that they can choose, or alternately that they can choose not to go to work.

 

As far as cheaper care, most of the best I've seen is stuff run by churches or other groups like that who see it as a sort of mission or mandate,  and often they have no need to make money and they have volunteers or facilities provided by the host organization.  But they are still limited by what they can charge.

[Bluegoat]

I agree. I think parents have the ultimate responsibility for providing this, not any given daycare they delegate that particular responsibility to for a season.

 

Hmm.  I don't know.   Certainly they have the decision making power over what is the best type of care for the child.

 

I mean, on one level I don't think we are individualistic in such a total way.  I think we're all in it together.  We co-inhere, as Charles Williams said.

 

But also, the shape of our society is kind of a communal creation.  If we decide to make two-income families the norm - and that is something very much affected by social decisions - individuals bear the brunt of that.  If it really benefits our society, we should make it workable for individuals doing basic things like having kids.

 

There is a utilitarian argument too, that it's better for society to have well-cared for kids - it costs less later on.

 

And I think also an argument around population growth - we don't, in most western countries, have high population growth - in some places it's negative.  But as one generation ages, they all depend on the next to take up the burdens of caring for them, both directly and indirectly.  At one time a major reason to have a child was to have someone to take care of you.  Now, we have socialized the risk of not having kids.  Other people's kids can help take care of us.  But the corollary of that is that the people who do become parents shouldn't have to shoulder that whole burden of raising them without any practical help/.

 

All in all, I think the basic issue is we really don't want to deal with childcare, so it gets away with often being not so great, and sometimes really awful.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

My solution would be that for kids exhibiting developmentally normal behaviours, the care was structured in such a way that workers could care for all those kids.  And also that there wouldn't be numbers of kids who were developmentally normal who were unable to thrive in those environments.  Not all would have to be the same, but there would be enough variety to accommodate the need.

 

Daycare for two-year olds should be able to give the right care for developmentally normal two-year olds.  And kids that age have a fair range of "normal".

 

Maybe that means changing the standards for that age group.  Maybe it means subsidizing care workers.  It likely means creating care spots so there are not waiting lists.

 

Concretely, they could look immediately at making smaller groups for care, mixed age groups, , classes moved up with the teachers, better training, like you tend to see in better care situations already.

 

Our main problem with this seems to be that we want to have most adults working, but we don't have a way to pay adequately for the care of all kids - which includes paying the providers properly.

 

I suppose another way would be to look at having some kind of parental leave until such an age when kids are more able to fit into a group care environment.

 

All kids deserve to be able to have the age-appropriate care.

 

We don't know how many times this child has bitten, how many times he has been prevented from biting, or even whether this child is "developmentally normal" as you say.

 

I agree that daycares need to be prepared to deal with some children who bite sometimes, and there is no evidence that this daycare did not have people trained and ready to deal with that.  For all we know he bit or was physically prevented from biting dozens of times before he was placed on suspension.  How many bites before you would admit that this child needs time or intervention that daycares are not expected to provide?

 

As another person noted, the daycare would not be in business if it kicked out every toddler who had challenging behaviors.  Because they pretty much all do.  Some kids are beyond what a daycare should be asked to handle.

 

[SKL]

 

All in all, I think the basic issue is we really don't want to deal with childcare, so it gets away with often being not so great, and sometimes really awful.

 

"really awful" as in kids being bitten all the time?

[SKL]

Group care just isn't right for all kids all through their childhoods.  That doesn't mean group care is to blame.

[Guest]

I can't be the only one with Yo Gabba songs running through their head...

 

Dont, don't, don't bite your friends!...

[Elizabeth86]

I can't be the only one with Yo Gabba songs running through their head...

 

Dont, don't, don't bite your friends!...

Omg lol. Way to lighten the mood!

[kiwik]

It sounds like you have every reason to be angry! You followed all of the rules and you did everything possible to qualify your son for the resources he needed, and the school completely dropped the ball and didn't do what they should have done, and now you and your son are paying the price for their negligence.

 

Is there any way to go over the principal's head and get a higher authority to help you?

 

I'm so sorry this is happening to your son. It's just terrible. :(

This is the first time since he was 3 months old I can stay at home with him because I can mostly work from home since a few weeks ago. I am going to keep him home while he destresses at least. He is an homebody and although social likes time alone so in the long run it could be a good thing.

[kiwik]

The fact is that part of being a parent is dealing with those times when our individual child can't benefit from the standard arrangements created for kids. We all have times when the standard doesn't work well. Either our kid is too sick, to big, too small, too smart, too challenged, too active, too tired, too aggressive, too shy. We deal with it.

 

Unfortunately it is sometimes very difficult to deal with it. I'm a single mom too - I know it's no picnic. But it's still our responsibility to find what does work for our child.

I don't get the impression you are a single mum struggling to make ends meet though.

 

I get the daycare did what it probably had to. I just hate to think of the short and long term consequences of losing childcare. Where I live centres have about a year or more waiting list for full time care. It is easier and usually cheaper to find licenced home based care but it would still take time and but quality is more variable than it should be and you always worry about the carer or their family getting sick. It is likely she will have to quit he job and that is why some kids end up being left at home alone or in a car nearby.

Edited September 26, 2017 by kiwik

[Elizabeth86]

And his first day back, 2 hours into it, he bit a kid again and now he is out. Sigh.

[nixpix5]

Wow, it made me feel old when I recalled a study on preschool expulsions and Google revealed that it was published over 10 years ago. But it's pertinent: Pre-K Students Expelled at More Than Three Times the Rate of K-12 Students

 

An interesting quotation from the lead author of the study: "When teachers reported having access to a behavioral consultant who was able to provide classroom–based strategies for dealing with challenging student behaviors, the likelihood of expulsion was nearly cut in half.â€

 

It is a sad fact that most preschool/daycare teachers-- like most parents!-- are not properly educated in managing unwanted behaviors. That's why we get the hot sauce advice. There's actually really good research on what works with kids, and daycare would seem an excellent place to apply the research, since we can't require parents to receive accreditation! But it's also a problem that daycare workers receive so little respect and social support; if you go into a career because you have a passion for it, you are more likely to be enthusiastic about the opportunity to guide little kids to be their best (and keep up-to-date on the latest social research re: things like biting and intervention!), especially if you receive gratitude from society as a whole for helping socialize our littlest citizens. We don't necessarily need "behavioral consultants", just a little more information/education.

 

One thing I have observed, both as a parent aware of my own missteps and working in a preschool classroom, is that many times the perception of the adult plays as crucial a role-- or perhaps the more crucial role-- in understanding the behavior of children as the actual behaviors. And when I'm feeling frazzled, disrespected, and underpaid, you bet I don't want to be around a kid who is having a bad day or a bad week, nor do I want to be responsible for fixing it.

Great post and I remember that research too. There is further research that shows a disproportionate amount of black toddlers are expelled as well and even more research that points to it effecting the self-esteem of children to be removed from school. Something should change if we are not going to pay moms to stay home with their kids until they stop biting. It is just so stressful for moms in this situation.

[kiwik]

And his first day back, 2 hours into it, he bit a kid again and now he is out. Sigh.

Because like with my son's issues they he probably went back to the same environment with no extra support. Somehow suspending a child is supposed to magically fix things - no really it is supposed to frighten the parent into removing the child because it looks better than expelling a little kid.

[bookbard]

 

And his first day back, 2 hours into it, he bit a kid again and now he is out. Sigh. 

 

 

 

I really hope your friend can find a better daycare placement. It isn't her fault - as I've said before, it's developmentally normal.

 

My boy bites. He has bitten all year long at preschool. I always apologise to the parents of the kid bitten - who then apologies to me for their kid pushing my kid leading to being bitten! We all understand what kids are like. 

 

There are only ten kids with two teachers, and they still can't seem to jump in between the kids in time, and even when I say, "Don't sit him next to X for snack time or group time", they'll say, "Oh, but they're friends" or whatever. 

 

He's certainly improving over time. And he doesn't bite at home. It's just when kids get in his face repeatedly - they both need to learn ways to deal with that, which is the whole point of going to preschool. 

 

Another child there has a habit of hitting and pushing. They called in an outside expert to observe and give them ideas. We all know who the kid is, and we all feel sorry for the parent. It's no one's fault. 

 

However, we're not in the USA, which means no one is going to sue or anything I guess. And the quality of childcare overall is higher and more regulated. 

 

https://theconversation.com/child-care-and-the-damage-myth-12861

 

 

 

 

 

[chiguirre]

And his first day back, 2 hours into it, he bit a kid again and now he is out. Sigh.

 

I'm sorry. Will she be able to get any of her college tuition back if she has to drop out now? If she's stuck for the semester, especially if she has loans, she's in a very hard place. The loans start repayment after 6 months of leaving school, degree or no, and they can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Essentially, she'll have a financial millstone around her neck for years and years if she can't find daycare. I hope someone steps up to help her out.

[Elizabeth86]

I'm sorry. Will she be able to get any of her college tuition back if she has to drop out now? If she's stuck for the semester, especially if she has loans, she's in a very hard place. The loans start repayment after 6 months of leaving school, degree or no, and they can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Essentially, she'll have a financial millstone around her neck for years and years if she can't find daycare. I hope someone steps up to help her out.

Im not sure. I would assume she gets financial aid as she has very little income. Not sure if she would have to pay it back or what?

Edited September 27, 2017 by Elizabeth86

[gardenmom5]

Great post and I remember that research too. There is further research that shows a disproportionate amount of black toddlers are expelled as well and even more research that points to it effecting the self-esteem of children to be removed from school. Something should change if we are not going to pay moms to stay home with their kids until they stop biting. It is just so stressful for moms in this situation.

 

My friend's daughter is a dance teacher in an inner city school.   they've found those kids really benefit from dance/yoga or other destress techniques.   these are things that their parents just don't know (because they never learned) to be able to pass them on.

[Catwoman]

And his first day back, 2 hours into it, he bit a kid again and now he is out. Sigh.

I'm so sorry. :(

[TechWife]

Really, it is the job of the daycare to take care of what happens during the day. Biting is s childcare issue. The daycare is failing to do their job.

It is a safety issue. I understand that biting issues aren't unique in toddlers. However, it is an issue for everyone who cares for the child. It is also an issue for other children in the class. The risk of injury is real, and blood borne illnesses can be transmitted through human bites. It is not a risk any childcare provider can accept for the long term.

[TechWife]

My friend's daughter is a dance teacher in an inner city school. they've found those kids really benefit from dance/yoga or other destress techniques. these are things that their parents just don't know (because they never learned) to be able to pass them on.

"Those kids?" All children benefit from physical movement and destressing texhniques. Please think about your phrasing - it matters.