Can you imagine public school going from 9-6?

[Sherry in OH]

The snow day thing is weird - isn't the point of snow days that it is unsafe for kids to be on the road driving or walking to school?  And unsafe for staff for that mmatter?

 

If it isn't unsafe, or just impossible, then why not have school?

 

Closures due to snow are rare here.  Usually when they do occur, the county is under a snow emergency and thus daycares are also closed.  Cold temperatures and fog are the usual reasons provided for school closures.  The school superintendent calls a calamity day by 7 am.  He has to consider weather and road conditions in all parts of the school district.  If it is not safe for children in any part of the school district to walk to school or a bus stop or to stand outside for at least 15 minutes, school will be delayed or cancelled. Conditions between town and rural parts of the district can vary considerably.  Also, parents get angry when school is first delayed and then cancelled.  Thus the superintendent tends to err on the side of caution.

 

My concerns about before and aftercare is not that the school district offers these services, but rather the effects the programs have on the community.

 

School grounds being used for aftercare means children not enrolled in the program may not use the playgrounds until after 6 pm.  The school playgrounds are the only public play areas in our neighborhood. 

 

Other venues' children’s programming is scheduled to accomodate families using aftercare.  That means that scouts, sports, and other school age children’s activities are scheduled for 6:30 pm or later.   The choice for all families is late bedtime or don't participate in extracurricular activities.

 

Not all children participating in aftercare do so because their parents are working.  Some are there because that’s where their friends are. This leaves even fewer children for non-participating children to play with after school. 

 

I see this movement going the way of full day kindergarten.  First full-day kindergarten was an option desired by families who would otherwise have to arrange part-time daycare.  Schools started offering it as a pay to participate program.  Half-day kindergarten remained free. Soon half-day kindergarten began to be viewed as sub-par.  Parents of children assigned to half-day kindergarten classes complained.  The state required school districts offering full-day kindergarten to provide it for all children free of charge.  Next school districts that didn’t have full day kindergarten were required to provide it.  So now kindergarten is a full day, five day a week program.  Families desiring a half-day option must turn to private schools.  I suspect that in a few years before and aftercare will be viewed as part of the school day rather than a pay to participate option.    Once it is part of the school day, there will be pressure to use the time for test-prep rather than play and enrichment.

[Bluegoat]

As someone who grew up on the Canadian border in a school district without buses, I can tell you that snow days are because they can't get the buses through.  Now, that isn't minor, but it is all about the buses. I grew up with no school buses and almost no snow days ever, and we had a lot more snow.

 

 

And if you do pay for 'snow day school care' you don't get a bus. The kids are dropped off by their parents on their way to work. so, if you can make it in your kid will have care. Which I think is better and safer than leaving them home alone. And every now and again, we do get a snow storm to such a degree that even the school snow day care is cancelled. It's upstate NY, so these things happen.

 

Yeah, I'm in Canada too, we have a lot of snow days.  And there are some days where schools are open but busses are canceled especially in rural areas, or they have a limited route.  But on a proper snow day, the school isn't open either, teachers are not expected to show up.

[Bluegoat]

I think that for parents of school-aged kids at least, we are there.  Most moms I know work while their kids are in school.  Honestly, there isn't much else to do if you don't homeschool.  You could clean and scrub all day, but after a point that doesn't feel satisfying.  I guess if you loved cooking and sewing you could make all the family's food and clothes from scratch, but most of us don't love those tasks quite that much.  Most of us feel our kids are served just as well if we shop at the store.  You could farm if you're rural, not so much if you're urban.  Working a paid job has indeed become the default for most moms whose kids are in full-time school.

 

Having it as the default is not at all the same as a social discussion and consensus.  THe conditions of the workforce have a significant impact on people's decisions on this - the fact that to get by on one income is often difficult or insecure, the fact that there are no other parents around, the fact that it is just what people do, and as you say, the fact that most people just put their kids in school by default, unless something happens to make them reconsider.

 

Yeah, if your kids are in school a good chunk of the day, you have some time to kill and a job might be one way to deal with that.

 

But if we imagine a population with a greater financial flexibility for families, where you could have more adults not working, or working less, those  patterns might change.  It would potentially make childcare, education, and eldercare much more flexible.  It could significantly increase people's engagement in community organizations.  Essentially some functions that are now part of the paid workforce would tend to return to the unpaid workforce.  (I really can't quite grasp the idea that there is nothing to do for someone who is not working apart from growing vegetables and scrubbing.  There is almost always a lot of work that needs to be done if someone has the time.)

 

There are pros and cons to a change from a fully paid workforce to one where more workers are unpaid, but they aren't something that really comes up much when people talk about whether we want two 40 hour incomes as normal for families.  I don't really like to see institutional decisions being made on the basis of a pattern that we've only adopted reflexively or by default.

[Tsuga]

 We have gone so far as to rename hard work, perseverance, and ambition "privilege". It's now "privilege" if your parents give a crap and participate in your upbringing or even read to you. 

 

I think you're confusing two things.

 

Being read to is a privilege.

 

Reading to children is, if not hard work, certainly fulfilling one's familial duties.

 

But the children themselves are simply benefiting from the largesse and love of their parents. Children who don't receive that input aren't failing to persevere.

 

They lack privilege and that lack will affect them their whole lives.

 

The socialist project is not to give every adult the same quality of life, but to give people the tools they need to earn a living wage.

 

Which is what comprehensive education is for. It's precisely to ensure that all children have the same capacity. Now if as adults they choose not to make the most of it, some will continue renting crappy tiny apartments and others will move forward. And some will get sick and some will care for others who are sick or elderly. And some will work hard and do excellent work but not get paid a lot because they are teachers.

 

Life isn't as simple as "if you work you get more". If it were, people would respond to the call to work more enthusiastically. The MAIN reason people do not respond to that as one would expect is that they aren't rewarded. They are getting cheated out of a living wage, they are nickel and dimed, so they learn the "wrong" lesson, that work doesn't pay, that "it's not what you know, it's who you know". So they behave accordingly at times.

 

But many people do persevere and still don't get ahead. Because life isn't fair.

[SKL]

Having it as the default is not at all the same as a social discussion and consensus.  THe conditions of the workforce have a significant impact on people's decisions on this - the fact that to get by on one income is often difficult or insecure, the fact that there are no other parents around, the fact that it is just what people do, and as you say, the fact that most people just put their kids in school by default, unless something happens to make them reconsider.

 

Yeah, if your kids are in school a good chunk of the day, you have some time to kill and a job might be one way to deal with that.

 

But if we imagine a population with a greater financial flexibility for families, where you could have more adults not working, or working less, those  patterns might change.  It would potentially make childcare, education, and eldercare much more flexible.  It could significantly increase people's engagement in community organizations.  Essentially some functions that are now part of the paid workforce would tend to return to the unpaid workforce.  (I really can't quite grasp the idea that there is nothing to do for someone who is not working apart from growing vegetables and scrubbing.  There is almost always a lot of work that needs to be done if someone has the time.)

 

There are pros and cons to a change from a fully paid workforce to one where more workers are unpaid, but they aren't something that really comes up much when people talk about whether we want two 40 hour incomes as normal for families.  I don't really like to see institutional decisions being made on the basis of a pattern that we've only adopted reflexively or by default.

 

I don't agree that there needs to be debate and consensus in the community that decides whether or not a dual-earning couple is a non-detrimental family structure.  Even if that were a great idea, I don't think we have the kind of evidence that would be needed to prove "how" good or bad it is.  We just have opinions, and I thought it was pretty well established that some people's opinion is irrelevant to my non-abusive family choices.

 

And, I do think it is pretty determinative that that the dual-income ship has sailed.

 

We don't hold off on building schools until after we agree that the kids needing education should have been born.  Any social spending you can think of wasn't done because the community first approved of the conditions giving rise to the need/demand.

 

All this talk of if we did this, we could have that, well if we were in Heaven we wouldn't need any social services, but we're on earth.  Although North America is pretty rich by global standards, it's not so rich that we have money to throw around changing stuff that isn't a problem just to see what happens next.  The fact is that most dual-earner / school kid families are quite fine with that arrangement.  (And as a single mom, I would add that I'm quite fine with working vs. being at home on a subsidy.)

 

And I would just add that the argument that I could do more volunteer work if I didn't do paid work isn't going to fly with many moms.  :P  Why don't I just go beat my head against a brick wall.  :P  I need the job to balance out the strange reality and politics of nonprofit organizations.  (I do volunteer, but no, that could not be my primary occupation.)

 

I don't think it's asking that much to provide an aftercare service in a building that already exists to serve school-aged kids.  I could see it being on a sliding scale, so the most needy kids could participate.  I don't think it needs to include food service; a simple small snack should be sufficient for most kids.  If the community wanted to add dinner for low-income kids, fine and dandy.  Can't be worse than sending them home to no dinner.

 

My school's aftercare costs $1.50/hr/kid, which I find very reasonable.  I have no idea whether they make a profit, but if they do, more power to them.  It is a lot cheaper and less stressful than hiring someone to go pick up my kids and take them somewhere else.

[zoobie]

Honestly, I see it the other way around: what it really comes down to is a society noticing that some of its citizens are not yet adults, and deciding to meet their needs anyways.

 

Who decided that children aren't citizens in the first place? Why should a government refrain from serving them.

Yes! It's not the child's fault if his parents are unable or unwilling to provide more or better. Not every child has access to the type of education that will allow him to scrap his way out of poverty, and not every child has the abilities to do so. Kids in Detroit or Flint? They can want to get out of poverty as much as any other child, but they aren't getting any sort of education or they're being poisoned and brain damaged by the water supply. Luck plays a huge, huge role in who escapes poverty. Saying it's only hard work is absurd.

[Bluegoat]

I don't agree that there needs to be debate and consensus in the community that decides whether or not a dual-earning couple is a non-detrimental family structure.  Even if that were a great idea, I don't think we have the kind of evidence that would be needed to prove "how" good or bad it is.  We just have opinions, and I thought it was pretty well established that some people's opinion is irrelevant to my non-abusive family choices.

 

And, I do think it is pretty determinative that that the dual-income ship has sailed.

 

We don't hold off on building schools until after we agree that the kids needing education should have been born.  Any social spending you can think of wasn't done because the community first approved of the conditions giving rise to the need/demand.

 

All this talk of if we did this, we could have that, well if we were in Heaven we wouldn't need any social services, but we're on earth.  Although North America is pretty rich by global standards, it's not so rich that we have money to throw around changing stuff that isn't a problem just to see what happens next.  The fact is that most dual-earner / school kid families are quite fine with that arrangement.  (And as a single mom, I would add that I'm quite fine with working vs. being at home on a subsidy.)

 

And I would just add that the argument that I could do more volunteer work if I didn't do paid work isn't going to fly with many moms.  :p  Why don't I just go beat my head against a brick wall.  :p  I need the job to balance out the strange reality and politics of nonprofit organizations.  (I do volunteer, but no, that could not be my primary occupation.)

 

I don't think it's asking that much to provide an aftercare service in a building that already exists to serve school-aged kids.  I could see it being on a sliding scale, so the most needy kids could participate.  I don't think it needs to include food service; a simple small snack should be sufficient for most kids.  If the community wanted to add dinner for low-income kids, fine and dandy.  Can't be worse than sending them home to no dinner.

 

My school's aftercare costs $1.50/hr/kid, which I find very reasonable.  I have no idea whether they make a profit, but if they do, more power to them.  It is a lot cheaper and less stressful than hiring someone to go pick up my kids and take them somewhere else.

 

Your opinions are private so long as they don't impact my life. (And yes, it isn't a data issue, it is a values issue.)

 

An economy where families need two incomes does effect my life.

 

No one independently shapes the economy, we make it collectively.  It's shape depends only partly on individual decisions - a lot if it is about policy.  So - we need to make collective policy decisions about this.  That should be done self-consciously, not reactively.

 

We build school primarily because we think education is important.  That is the policy aspect.  The choice to build an individual school comes out of an assessment of the needs of the community to be given an education.

[8circles]

I used to think time with me was so important, but when I put my kids in preschool, I saw a lot of benefit.  I do not agree with the attitude that kids being away from their mom during working hours is a shame or a tragedy.  It's just a different choice.  There's no sweeping evidence to prove otherwise.

 

I don't think I'm so incredibly wonderful that my kids couldn't possibly be as well off spending time with anyone else.  So far, most of their teachers have been excellent people for my kids to associate with.  Possibly better than me at times.  :)  I like that they are getting acquainted with all sorts of personalities and world views.  While I have things I need to teach them, most things can be learned from anybody reasonably articulate and moral.

 

And yes, I am a participant in the business world, and this gives my kids a glimpse into their possible future.  Yes, I am showing my daughters that a woman is entitled to an existence outside of domestic endeavors if she wants it.  If that is wrong, I guess they will forgive me for it.  FTR I don't have an exciting job - and I bring my kids along for the more interesting aspects of my job.  The image of a career woman shaking off those kids so she can be the dynamic person she really wants to be - I don't see that anywhere, except maybe on TV.

 

In this thread, we're talking about school-aged kids, not infants.

 

What a strange thing to say.  It never ocurred to me that people would think that I consider myself the best role model possible & that's why I spend so much time with them.  How strange.  It isn't about learning things or keeping them sheltered from the world.

 

I don't have any opinion about your particular situation, it seems to work for you & your kids.  

 

I want to spend a lot of time with my kids - not because I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread, but because I'm their mother.  I want to bond with them.  I want them to feel the stability of being part of our family & having that strong foundation.  I don't believe there's only one way to do that.  It is possible to do that without homeschooling.  But for *me* to accomplish that, we need time together.  If you 1) don't consider that important or 2) believe you can accomplish it in a different way, that is completely your perogative.

 

I think that when the majority of families spend most of their waking hours away from each other, it becomes a societal problem.  That's why I don't like further cementing that the norm is for school-aged kids to be away from home for so long each day.  I don't think it's healthy on a large scale - each family may be high-functioning and healthy, but I don't think the society is.

 

Life is about much more that work, work, work, always be productive, always be doing something.  It's bringing the rat-race out of the corporate world and submitting families and children to it as well.  No, thank you.

[Arcadia]

If the whole society is able to become a single income family society, what would be the safety net for unemployment of the sole breadwinner especially when a big portion of unemployment benefits is used up for private insurance. What would be the safety net for retirements? Would 401k contributions for non-working spouse by the breadwinner becomes compulsory?

 

With the divorce rate as it is, how is the single income model going to work out? Does the guy pay enough alimony for the ex-wife to stay home until she re-marry or all their kids graduated high school?

 

Unless there is going to be a substantial number of SAHDs under the single income family scenario, the old "mom's place is at home" feeling is going to come back.

[Tsuga]

I would like to introduce the idea of herd parenting.

 

My kids have the herd.

 

We are a herd, a tribe, a village of people and we raise kids together. We are individual families with our individual ways, but all of our kids benefit by bonding with more than one family, more than one culture, more than one parent.

 

I tell my kids not to lick their plate. They don't believe me. Grandma tells them. They believe her, but tease her. The neighbor grandpa tells them not to lick the plates. They believe him but don't really feel this rule applies universally. The school lunch monitor announces it to the group and the group leaders follow. The fifth graders look at the third graders witheringly. And slowly, slowly my children, begin to accept that there are social norms they might benefit from accepting.

 

They see other kids' consequences and don't have to test every last thing themselves. Because the know what is going to happen if you kick someone at school. Someone else did it. For kids like mine that are easily confused about the difference between "STOP THAT IS BAD!" and "I don't know, why don't you try it again, your sister might not get a scar this time, why not, after all?", this is a huge, huge plus.

 

If you haven't herded children in a group, you haven't experienced the benefit of the herd. I have lived in three places with my kids. Every time, I prioritized finding a good herd. A herd with lots of sensible moms. Not moms just like me. Some were anal about fruit snacks, others were paranoid about "creepers", others were stupid, some were a little snobby (but hey, it was my group, so never TOO snobby). Some were religious, some were not. Some kids had allergies, some did not. But we had this herd. And everyone came to the parties and everyone put up with one another even when someone was irritating.

 

And we have that on our block now, and in our schools. There's patience and forgiveness and shared values that go beyond the nuclear family.

 

To me, that is critical. It's not socialization as in, "Oh no the kids won't know what the cool sneakers are" although that is a downside of parenting in a herd. The negative peer pressure. No, it's more like--we aren't the strongest in the group, so we use strength in numbers.

 

I was fully, 100% ready to sacrifice my entire career for my kids and husband. He pushed too far and finally left, leaving me with two small children alone overseas. Nice. And I promise you, there was no amazing sisterhood waiting to pick me up. The answer was, "Get a job." No man wanted to rescue a woman with a four and two year old, and I could do absolutely nothing to make my ex-husband come back. That was the problem.

 

Luckily for me, even before that happened I had a strong belief that we can't do things all by ourselves, mainly because I've never seen it happen. Even rich people have tribes they pay, accountants, lawyers, trainers, therapists, etc. People need people. Rich people have assistants, poor people have friends. I prefer friends. ANYWAY, so I took to my herd and got totally drunk with a friend and cried and cried and then they took my kids while I worked and got myself out of that situation.

 

To me, when I talk about having my kids in care, that's what I'm going for. I still remember Kat who worked at the Boys and Girls Club when I was little. She used to make us do push ups when we forgot our cards, and "the cockroach". She kept the whole place running.

 

It's not about n to raising your own kids. It's about a conscious decision to allow your circle of trust, learning, and community extend beyond the nuclear family which is, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "a terribly vulnerable survival unit".

 

We're all intertwined. I spend time with my kids, but I also have a life at work. They also have lives apart from their nuclear family. But these are lives of joy and love as well.

 

It's not about self-fulfillment at all. It was that we weren't enough for one another, not even me for them.

 

My kids have never once cried or not wanted to be dropped off... anywhere. The love the herd. They love the chaos, they love business, they love the creativity, the energy.

 

That's not the "right" way to live but it's a way to live that many many people legitimately enjoy.

 

 

 

I think that when the majority of families spend most of their waking hours away from each other, it becomes a societal problem.

 

I disagree. I think that dysfunction comes from something else, from failing to value one another on a fundamental level, failures of respect and kindness, and that these come from selfish behavior. But that behavior can be fostered in a family (see: certain reality TV families, because we can all see them) or it can be fostered in an institution, such as in a school with pervasive bullying.

 

OR you can learn a lot from family or learn a lot from school.

 

And let's not forget that there is a big continuum.

 

What I'd really love is a shorter workday! With gains in efficiency that's possible but it's not looking to be popular any time soon. I guess we'll just have to sit there and write more TPS reports. :P

[Bluegoat]

I would like to introduce the idea of herd parenting.

 

My kids have the herd.

 

We are a herd, a tribe, a village of people and we raise kids together. We are individual families with our individual ways, but all of our kids benefit by bonding with more than one family, more than one culture, more than one parent.

 

I tell my kids not to lick their plate. They don't believe me. Grandma tells them. They believe her, but tease her. The neighbor grandpa tells them not to lick the plates. They believe him but don't really feel this rule applies universally. The school lunch monitor announces it to the group and the group leaders follow. The fifth graders look at the third graders witheringly. And slowly, slowly my children, begin to accept that there are social norms they might benefit from accepting.

 

They see other kids' consequences and don't have to test every last thing themselves. Because the know what is going to happen if you kick someone at school. Someone else did it. For kids like mine that are easily confused about the difference between "STOP THAT IS BAD!" and "I don't know, why don't you try it again, your sister might not get a scar this time, why not, after all?", this is a huge, huge plus.

 

If you haven't herded children in a group, you haven't experienced the benefit of the herd. I have lived in three places with my kids. Every time, I prioritized finding a good herd. A herd with lots of sensible moms. Not moms just like me. Some were anal about fruit snacks, others were paranoid about "creepers", others were stupid, some were a little snobby (but hey, it was my group, so never TOO snobby). Some were religious, some were not. Some kids had allergies, some did not. But we had this herd. And everyone came to the parties and everyone put up with one another even when someone was irritating.

 

And we have that on our block now, and in our schools. There's patience and forgiveness and shared values that go beyond the nuclear family.

 

To me, that is critical. It's not socialization as in, "Oh no the kids won't know what the cool sneakers are" although that is a downside of parenting in a herd. The negative peer pressure. No, it's more like--we aren't the strongest in the group, so we use strength in numbers.

 

I was fully, 100% ready to sacrifice my entire career for my kids and husband. He pushed too far and finally left, leaving me with two small children alone overseas. Nice. And I promise you, there was no amazing sisterhood waiting to pick me up. The answer was, "Get a job." No man wanted to rescue a woman with a four and two year old, and I could do absolutely nothing to make my ex-husband come back. That was the problem.

 

Luckily for me, even before that happened I had a strong belief that we can't do things all by ourselves, mainly because I've never seen it happen. Even rich people have tribes they pay, accountants, lawyers, trainers, therapists, etc. People need people. Rich people have assistants, poor people have friends. I prefer friends. ANYWAY, so I took to my herd and got totally drunk with a friend and cried and cried and then they took my kids while I worked and got myself out of that situation.

 

To me, when I talk about having my kids in care, that's what I'm going for. I still remember Kat who worked at the Boys and Girls Club when I was little. She used to make us do push ups when we forgot our cards, and "the cockroach". She kept the whole place running.

 

It's not about n to raising your own kids. It's about a conscious decision to allow your circle of trust, learning, and community extend beyond the nuclear family which is, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "a terribly vulnerable survival unit".

 

We're all intertwined. I spend time with my kids, but I also have a life at work. They also have lives apart from their nuclear family. But these are lives of joy and love as well.

 

It's not about self-fulfillment at all. It was that we weren't enough for one another, not even me for them.

 

My kids have never once cried or not wanted to be dropped off... anywhere. The love the herd. They love the chaos, they love business, they love the creativity, the energy.

 

That's not the "right" way to live but it's a way to live that many many people legitimately enjoy.

 

 

I disagree. I think that dysfunction comes from something else, from failing to value one another on a fundamental level, failures of respect and kindness, and that these come from selfish behavior. But that behavior can be fostered in a family (see: certain reality TV families, because we can all see them) or it can be fostered in an institution, such as in a school with pervasive bullying.

 

OR you can learn a lot from family or learn a lot from school.

 

And let's not forget that there is a big continuum.

 

What I'd really love is a shorter workday! With gains in efficiency that's possible but it's not looking to be popular any time soon. I guess we'll just have to sit there and write more TPS reports. :p

 

You know, I think you are right, but I don't think it negates the value in having less necessity for every family to be two income.  Adults without paid jobs can have a fairly important role even in that kind of herd scenario. 

 

I think actually that is a potential problem I see with the state socialized model of care of this kind.  It may be a little self-serving, since it would put me out of a job.  I can afford to stay at home in part because I watch my friends kids as well - it is nowhere near a job income, but it gives us a cushion and it means their kids are in a family environment with a nice sized group of kids. But even in unpaid situation - it is good to have someone around if you need to take a kid to the ER, or to watch your dog.  It gives scope for many other things - eldercare is a good example, people watching out for their neighbours.  Now many of these things end up being paid, either privately or through the state.  More flexibility in people's communities and family economy though would IMO go a long way to making for a functioning community. 

 

How to make this secure for people who are not in paid employment is a question but not, I think, an insurmountable one.

[8circles]

I would like to introduce the idea of herd parenting.

 

My kids have the herd.

 

We are a herd, a tribe, a village of people and we raise kids together. We are individual families with our individual ways, but all of our kids benefit by bonding with more than one family, more than one culture, more than one parent.

 

I tell my kids not to lick their plate. They don't believe me. Grandma tells them. They believe her, but tease her. The neighbor grandpa tells them not to lick the plates. They believe him but don't really feel this rule applies universally. The school lunch monitor announces it to the group and the group leaders follow. The fifth graders look at the third graders witheringly. And slowly, slowly my children, begin to accept that there are social norms they might benefit from accepting.

 

They see other kids' consequences and don't have to test every last thing themselves. Because the know what is going to happen if you kick someone at school. Someone else did it. For kids like mine that are easily confused about the difference between "STOP THAT IS BAD!" and "I don't know, why don't you try it again, your sister might not get a scar this time, why not, after all?", this is a huge, huge plus.

 

If you haven't herded children in a group, you haven't experienced the benefit of the herd. I have lived in three places with my kids. Every time, I prioritized finding a good herd. A herd with lots of sensible moms. Not moms just like me. Some were anal about fruit snacks, others were paranoid about "creepers", others were stupid, some were a little snobby (but hey, it was my group, so never TOO snobby). Some were religious, some were not. Some kids had allergies, some did not. But we had this herd. And everyone came to the parties and everyone put up with one another even when someone was irritating.

 

And we have that on our block now, and in our schools. There's patience and forgiveness and shared values that go beyond the nuclear family.

 

To me, that is critical. It's not socialization as in, "Oh no the kids won't know what the cool sneakers are" although that is a downside of parenting in a herd. The negative peer pressure. No, it's more like--we aren't the strongest in the group, so we use strength in numbers.

 

I was fully, 100% ready to sacrifice my entire career for my kids and husband. He pushed too far and finally left, leaving me with two small children alone overseas. Nice. And I promise you, there was no amazing sisterhood waiting to pick me up. The answer was, "Get a job." No man wanted to rescue a woman with a four and two year old, and I could do absolutely nothing to make my ex-husband come back. That was the problem.

 

Luckily for me, even before that happened I had a strong belief that we can't do things all by ourselves, mainly because I've never seen it happen. Even rich people have tribes they pay, accountants, lawyers, trainers, therapists, etc. People need people. Rich people have assistants, poor people have friends. I prefer friends. ANYWAY, so I took to my herd and got totally drunk with a friend and cried and cried and then they took my kids while I worked and got myself out of that situation.

 

To me, when I talk about having my kids in care, that's what I'm going for. I still remember Kat who worked at the Boys and Girls Club when I was little. She used to make us do push ups when we forgot our cards, and "the cockroach". She kept the whole place running.

 

It's not about n to raising your own kids. It's about a conscious decision to allow your circle of trust, learning, and community extend beyond the nuclear family which is, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "a terribly vulnerable survival unit".

 

We're all intertwined. I spend time with my kids, but I also have a life at work. They also have lives apart from their nuclear family. But these are lives of joy and love as well.

 

It's not about self-fulfillment at all. It was that we weren't enough for one another, not even me for them.

 

My kids have never once cried or not wanted to be dropped off... anywhere. The love the herd. They love the chaos, they love business, they love the creativity, the energy.

 

That's not the "right" way to live but it's a way to live that many many people legitimately enjoy.

 

 

I disagree. I think that dysfunction comes from something else, from failing to value one another on a fundamental level, failures of respect and kindness, and that these come from selfish behavior. But that behavior can be fostered in a family (see: certain reality TV families, because we can all see them) or it can be fostered in an institution, such as in a school with pervasive bullying.

 

OR you can learn a lot from family or learn a lot from school.

 

And let's not forget that there is a big continuum.

 

What I'd really love is a shorter workday! With gains in efficiency that's possible but it's not looking to be popular any time soon. I guess we'll just have to sit there and write more TPS reports. :p

 

I'm not trying to negate the value of the herd.  I agree with all your points about that.  I dont think having 2 parents NEED to work to that extent and therefore need this level of care is a healthy norm.  Because there is value outside of the herd as well.

[SKL]

Whatever you think of the "idealness" of working moms, it is better to make it easier for those who struggle most (many single and very low-income moms) than to get on a high horse and wax philosophical about why they shouldn't be working.

 

Nobody is talking about taking away a family's ability to arrange other care that works for them.  Nobody is saying that everyone should work whether they want/need to or not.  How is providing a few hours of daycare for school kids stopping others from homeschooling or whatever else they want to do?

[8circles]

Whatever you think of the "idealness" of working moms, it is better to make it easier for those who struggle most (many single and very low-income moms) than to get on a high horse and wax philosophical about why they shouldn't be working.

 

Nobody is talking about taking away a family's ability to arrange other care that works for them.  Nobody is saying that everyone should work whether they want/need to or not.  How is providing a few hours of daycare for school kids stopping others from homeschooling or whatever else they want to do?

Who is talking about working moms?  I'm talking about families, which come in many varieties.  I'm not saying people shouldn't be working, I'm saying it's too much.

 

I'm not even saying these programs aren't needed or shouldn't happen.  Really, are you actually reading the thread?

[SKL]

Who is talking about working moms?  I'm talking about families, which come in many varieties.  I'm not saying people shouldn't be working, I'm saying it's too much.

 

I'm not even saying these programs aren't needed or shouldn't happen.  Really, are you actually reading the thread?

 

I don't think some people get to decide what is "too much" for other families.

[8circles]

I don't think some people get to decide what is "too much" for other families.

 

I haven't, I've validated that families are different & can be successful in different ways.  I've said what I think is too much for society.  I get to have that opinion.