Jump to content

Menu

Gov't support for Early Childhood Education: what is your opinion on this issue?


Recommended Posts

well, i think you answered your own question --

 

because of some feminist movement in the 60's.

 

divorce rates --and the reasons given -- have been appalling since then.

 

yes, we can recognize extreme situations, and yes, we can recognize that MOST single parent homes are NOT because of abusive relationships.

 

Um...I didn't say all divorces were the result of abuse. I just listed a couple of examples of divorce that doesn't demonize the woman.

 

and as she mentioned in that same post:

 

we've got to put the pieces back together, promote more programs for marriages...encourage parenting classes...strengthen the family..encourage and promote companies to offer flex jobs for single mothers..

 

Then what gov. program do you plan to implement?

 

give tax breaks for those families living on one income, tax the heck out of luxury items..cars over 50k..telelvisions over 30 inches...let the churches and non-profit agencies fill the needs for those in NEED....that's how OUR government was founded and designed....

 

Doesn't Obama already want to tax the weathy and give tax breaks for the not so fortunate??? Because of the Bill of Rights, we have freedom of religion in this country which allows people to choose what church they attend, or even if they want to attend church...

 

just because conservatives are against people collecting GVT welfare doesn't mean those families shouldn't be given ANY welfare --we just differ on the SOURCE of that welfare.

 

I'm not trying to argue welfare, who should get welfare, what source this welfare should come from...I'm saying don't demonize single mothers for wanting to work to support their families then say they're bad mothers because they work to stay off welfare yet have to put their kids in daycare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that women who are in abusive relationships should stay married? Are you saying women whose husbands have died should lose custody of their children so they can go live in a two parent household?

 

 

The situations you mentioned are the exception, not the rule. I have issues with sweeping, expensive, invasive policies that deal with what should be the exception, moving those who are only victim by personal decisions on to equal footing with those who really are victimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...I didn't say all divorces were the result of abuse. I just listed a couple of examples of divorce that doesn't demonize the woman.

 

[/color]

 

Then what gov. program do you plan to implement?

 

Doesn't Obama already want to tax the weathy and give tax breaks for the not so fortunate??? Because of the Bill of Rights, we have freedom of religion in this country which allows people to choose what church they attend, or even if they want to attend church...

 

 

I'm not trying to argue welfare, who should get welfare, what source this welfare should come from...I'm saying don't demonize single mothers for wanting to work to support their families then say they're bad mothers because they work to stay off welfare yet have to put their kids in daycare.

 

nobody was "demonizing" women -- we are demonizing the situations that people choose which end up in failure, then relying on the gvt while they figure out what they SHOULD have done. I think Cheryl explained that part pretty well in her followup.

 

 

Obama wants to tax INCOMES --I am content taxing ITEMS that are PURCHASED --NOT the money people earn. HUGE difference when you're talking gvt intrusion into people's lives. Taxing items gives people the opportunity to CHOOSE where to spend their money. Taxing their INCOME takes away those choices. Even though my dh has a job that revolves around those luxury items [he flies business jets], we would BOTH still rather see taxes on Items vs Income. Nobody owes him a job --he can change jobs if he needs to.

 

all those examples she gave are things in which a Gvt Program should NOT be implemented. I would encourage people to take more advantage of the programs that are already being offered by private/charitable organizations.

YOU automatically ask what the gvt is going to do about those problems -- I say the GOVERNMENT should do darn little and instead let people do it.

 

There are plenty of non-profit organizations that have nothing to do w/ religion.

You are correct in noting that most people equate charity with religion: religious organizations are reknown for the amount of good they do. Maybe the secular side of society should try to catch up. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quote "by 4th grade, all kids will level out" is part of the Headstart research. It doesn't mean that achievement is flat across all categories of kids, including your accelerated 7 year old. It means that by 4th grade, the gains shown in early grades by the kids who had gone to Headstart level out--you can no longer see the effect of the intervention by 4th grade--or what is there is minimal. The research fuels the argument for continued intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that want entertainment pay for entertainment. I pay for the education of my children. Our tax dollars pay for the education of the children in ps. Our tax money does not pay football stars or movie stars salaries. I don't get your point. If you think that our tax dollars should be used to pay school teachers millions of dollars, where do you expect the money to come from?

Much of our tax dollars for education go to funding the great bureaucracy the education departments have become. Very little of it actually makes it to the people who teach your children.

 

But, I think the point was that we as a population are willing to pay out of our own pockets the outrageous salaries of movie stars and sports figures. When asked to provide money in the form of taxes, we balk.

 

Personally, the problem that I have with paying the taxes is that it ends up in the system and only a trickle makes it to the people who need help or education. Until the system is changed, pouring money into it isn't going to do any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might think more of them if K-12 education weren't already such a mess in most parts of the country. I don't think anyone should kid themselves that the reason Am. students are so unimpressive internationally is because they don't start school young enough. Adding more grades at the beginning of the institutional school track (or at the end with college being the current equivalent of high school for many), isn't going to fix what's broken. I'd be more impressed with creative solutions and alternatives to the current K-12 program being suggested with the money ALREADY being spent.

 

:iagree: And I'd rep you if I could. ;) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poster here mentioned something that has struck a chord with me. She said that conservatives want women to stay home with their kids, but we balk at paying for day care and preschool for those women who can't afford it.

 

For me, that is true, I'm ashamed to say. I don't want to pay more taxes for women to stay home and not work, yet I don't want them to send their kids to daycare. How ironic and hypocritical.

 

However, if there was another way for a single mom to stay home with her child, I would be the first one to donate to a private charity to see that happen. We have a few posters here and I have some RL friends who are, through little or no fault of their own, single and staying home with their dc. It would be sad, imo, if the government programs kicked these moms out of their house to go work, and then sent their dc to a gov't school, if that wasn't the best fit for their family.

 

If there was a private charity that a single mom could go to for assistance, I can't help but believe that there would be some accountability on the mom's part. It may not be the perfect program, but a board of directors could set up guidelines so abuse wouldn't be as pervasive as it is with the gov't programs.

 

Like I've said before, it's the abuse that's so dang irritating, ya know? I just can't stand the thought that we're paying young girls to drop out of school and start having children with absolutely no chance and no incentive for them to dig themselves out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

 

Think of a well-funded charity that would make sure the young mom could finish high school, and hold her accountable for her choices. And a charity that could make sure single folks on this board don't live in absolute poverty if they choose to homeschool. The government sure isn't doing that, is it?

 

All the kinks aren't worked out of my perfect private charity yet, so ideas are welcome. :) There will be shortfalls, I'm sure, but as many as the gov't has?

 

still thinking,

Aggie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of our tax dollars for education go to funding the great bureaucracy the education departments have become. Very little of it actually makes it to the people who teach your children.

 

But, I think the point was that we as a population are willing to pay out of our own pockets the outrageous salaries of movie stars and sports figures. When asked to provide money in the form of taxes, we balk.

 

Personally, the problem that I have with paying the taxes is that it ends up in the system and only a trickle makes it to the people who need help or education. Until the system is changed, pouring money into it isn't going to do any good.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I confess that I don't completely understand this bill, esp. the issue of whether or not preschool would be mandatory. However, I'll chime in with what I think at this point.

 

As a clinical social worker who is generally also a social conservative (boy did I flip out my professors in grad school! ;)), I do not support mandatory preschool. I don't think it's good for kids developmentally, good for families in terms of govt. intrusion or good for the already broken educational system (who does not need to take anything else on until it has fixed the mess it is already in!). So, if this bill will force mandatory preschool in the vein of mandatory (or just completely expected!) kindergarten, I'm not for it. Too many problems and unnecessary interventions for the average family.

 

That said, I do favor governmental assistance for high quality daycare for working families. Not all families necessarily (and don't ask me how to break that out because I'm not yet sure myself), but certainly for lower income ones. I hate that we even need it, because I don't like seeing kids in daycare at all, but the fact is that we do. Good parents should not have to choose between leaving their kids in substandard care in order to work. Too many have to do that at this point, for whatever the reason.

 

So, from my limited understanding of the bill at this point, I'd say I don't think it belongs in the arena of public education (though I get why it would seem natural to tie it to the public schools). I'm thinking that we should make quality daycare (or call it preschool if you like) more easily available to the working poor, but do the school choice thing here. I just want to see the majority of whatever money is set aside for this actually getting to the kids and not fueling the NEA's bureaucracy any further.

 

Like THAT'S gonna happen anytime soon, but that's what I think. ;)

Edited by Twinmom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama wants to tax INCOMES --I am content taxing ITEMS that are PURCHASED --NOT the money people earn. HUGE difference when you're talking gvt intrusion into people's lives. Taxing items gives people the opportunity to CHOOSE where to spend their money. Taxing their INCOME takes away those choices. Even though my dh has a job that revolves around those luxury items [he flies business jets], we would BOTH still rather see taxes on Items vs Income. Nobody owes him a job --he can change jobs if he needs to..

 

Okay, I see the difference, but then some would say that just because they work hard and can afford to buy nicer things they shouldn't be penalized for doing so. I still support taxing income.

 

all those examples she gave are things in which a Gvt Program should NOT be implemented. I would encourage people to take more advantage of the programs that are already being offered by private/charitable organizations.

YOU automatically ask what the gvt is going to do about those problems -- I say the GOVERNMENT should do darn little and instead let people do it.

 

There are plenty of non-profit organizations that have nothing to do w/ religion.

You are correct in noting that most people equate charity with religion: religious organizations are reknown for the amount of good they do. Maybe the secular side of society should try to catch up. ;)

 

I didn't ask what was the govt. going to do, I asked what you wanted the govt. to do. (knowing how you would answer.) My point was I know you are much more conservative than I and don't like the gov telling you how to live you life, but you agreed when Cheryl says "we've got to put the pieces back together, promote more programs for marriages...encourage parenting classes...strengthen the family.." you want to tell others how to live their life. It just seemed to me there was a huge double standard going on. The gov can't judge everyone else based on our own morality. The gov can't say, sorry, I think it was your fault that you're a single mother because I don't believe in...or I would never make that choice based on my belief, so your choice is wrong. That's not the government's role. :001_cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gov can't judge everyone else based on our own morality. The gov can't say, sorry, I think it was your fault that you're a single mother because I don't believe in...or I would never make that choice based on my belief, so your choice is wrong. That's not the government's role. :001_cool:

 

But it's not the tax-payer's job to fund anybody's way of life, either. If a person is not working, it's not the tax-payer (which is who the government is, btw) who needs to buy luxury items for that person.

 

When a person makes choices about how to live their life, there are, or should be, consequences to fit the choice. This tax-payer is pretty tired of funding poor choices with no consequences.

Edited by Aggie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not the tax-payer's job to fund anybody's way of life, either. If a person is not working, it's not the tax-payer (which is who the government is, btw) who needs to buy luxury items for that person.

 

When a person makes choices about how to live their life, there are, or should be, consequences to fit the choice. This tax-payer is pretty tired of funding poor choices with no consequences.

 

Sometimes, single parenthood isn't exactly a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two separate issues. Preschool, to me, is something that children go to for 2-3 hours in the morning several days a week as enrichment. Daycare is the whole day long while parents are working. So, is Obama talking about universal preschool or universal daycare?

 

If we are talking about day care, then I think that it should be taken into account that for many parents, an institutional setting is their last choice for care for their children. If I recall correctly, it goes, parents, other relatives, friends, home day care, institutional day care. So whatever would help more parents be able to take care of their own children, with supplemental child care as needed, is probably the best solution. Things like: encouraging companies to permit flextime, part-time and WAH options (which would also save on gas) and untying health insurance from jobs so that people don't have to work a full-time job just for the insurance.

 

If we are talking about preschool, well, I don't see the schools doing a super job right now, so they probably don't need something else to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest janainaz
You've answered my point! The breakdown of the family...but just because the family is broken does it mean we shouldn't fix it? Let's take a vase...it's broken..so now instead of picking up the pieces and putting it back together where it can hold water, we're going to sort out each of the pieces and allow the hammer (that which broke the vase in the first place) the ability and choice to smash every last single shard....

 

My point is...we've got shards..we've got to put the pieces back together, promote more programs for marriages...encourage parenting classes...strengthen the family..encourage and promote companies to offer flex jobs for single mothers..give tax breaks for those families living on one income, tax the heck out of luxury items..cars over 50k..telelvisions over 30 inches...let the churches and non-profit agencies fill the needs for those in NEED....that's how OUR government was founded and designed....

 

And don't get me started on the daycare..I feel just as strongly that 80% of those who use it do not have to. I see families with two brand new car payments, huge televisions, mortgages over their income...dropping them off at daycare. I also see families living on one vehicle that's 15 years old making sacrifices to make sure that they're kids have either a parent or a grandparent or relative taking on the role of rearing....the government should have NO hand in it.

 

We have more single/divorced mothers than any other generation? Blame the 60's and the onset of daycare..more of the same is not going to help.

 

Tara

 

:iagree: thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, some certainly DO make the choice to stay home and do a work from home job. There have always been one or two WAH-single moms in almost every homeschool group I've been in. They had to rethink what career they needed to pursue to make it happen, but they DO have a CHOICE. It might not be the choice they WANTED, and it might not have been an EASY choice, but the choice is there nonetheless.

 

It wasn't luxury, it was a CHOICE.

 

Very true. I have worked from home, and outside of the home as a single parent. I strongly believe a parent whould be home with their child, however I have also built a 20 year career in childcare as a daycare provider. My kids have attended daycare, typically with me as their teacher but also twice for 1 year stints each time without me when I went back to college and for 1 year p/t while I worked in a dr's office. I made the choice to do what I had to do to remain home with the kids. It is far from easy, in fact there is days where I think about sticking them all in daycare and working outside of the home just to get a break. My kids have been through abuse at the hands of the dayacre staff they have had over the years when I was not their teacher. Receiving accrediation means skilled/trained staff who are truely there for the love of the children and not because they could not get another job, means the risk to children at the hands of a staff is less. In every instance that my children were harmed (both by staff and by other children) it was due to untrained staff and children being inadequately supervised/guided. Accrediation means more money for qualified staff which means better care for the children.

 

Again I do think children should be home with their parent in an ideal situation, but I know of families where it is best for both parents to work f/t not just because of money issues, but because the mother and/or father just can not handle the children. I have known of many cases of moms with PPD who put their little ones in daycare or preschool because they can not adequately care for them. Or where the mom simply needs the stimulation that work provides. Is it ideal no, but if the option is a mother who is resentful of their child because they feel they HAVE to stay home I would rather a safe quality daycare/preschool was available for them to use.

 

As far as gov't funding/subsidies those whould be based on income. Even when I was making only $800 a month while in school f/t I still have to pay daycare fees, the subsidy only covers a portion, parents are still required to pay a fee even if they get full subsidy in this province. Parents are then still accountable kwim it is not just a hand out, even with full subsidy at that time I paid $320/month for 2 children. Free childcare would have made it easier, for sure, but I think for too many parents it would make it too easy/convient to take their kids to daycare everyday without a real thought about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means that by 4th grade, the gains shown in early grades by the kids who had gone to Headstart level out--you can no longer see the effect of the intervention by 4th grade

 

I understood what you meant by this the first time you posted it. I used to work for Head Start. I disagree with those who say that it is little more than babysitting. The Head Start I worked for provided an very enriched environment for kids whose parents were working poor, emphasizing readiness skills with no undue and developmentally inappropriate emphasis on early academics.

 

Does the leveling out of achievement by 4th grade (which I have heard of before) mean that the playing field is now level for these kids? By that I mean, if these kids hadn't attended Head Start, by fourth grade would they be way behind?

 

Regardless, I do not support universal publicly funded pre-K. I do support it for kids with medical/developmental issues and for kids whose parents are working poor. In a perfect world, I would like to see all mothers or fathers able to stay home with their kids and benefit from knowing the skills to enrich their child's environment. However, I live in the real world and I know that many families can't do that. I feel like I see a decidedly anti-woman attitude in the idea that single moms are ****ed if they do (go to work, put their kids in daycare=bad mom) and ****ed if they don't (stay home, rely on welfare=bad mom) and I think that saying to kids, "Your slutty mom made bad choices and you must suffer for them" doesn't help the kids or our country. Turning our collective backs on poor kids because we don't approve of their mothers' choices will not help our country move forward.

 

My son, who was adopted from an orphanage, has multiple developmental issues. We are lucky in that I found a fantastic private clinic to address his issues and that we had minimal co-pays (they were expensive for us, but in relation to how much the services actually cost, they were minimal). However, if someone else had a child like mine and no insurance or insurance that didn't cover speech, OT, PT, etc., absolutely do I think that these programs should be publicly funded. It doesn't help our society move forward to neglect these kids.

 

But universal pre-K just because some family wants their kid in pre-K and thinks it would be nifty not to have to pay for it? Nope.

 

TaraTheLiberator (as opposed to the other Tara on the thread ... Hi Tara!! :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I do think children should be home with their parent in an ideal situation, but I know of families where it is best for both parents to work f/t not just because of money issues, but because the mother and/or father just can not handle the children. I have known of many cases of moms with PPD who put their little ones in daycare or preschool because they can not adequately care for them. Or where the mom simply needs the stimulation that work provides. Is it ideal no, but if the option is a mother who is resentful of their child because they feel they HAVE to stay home I would rather a safe quality daycare/preschool was available for them to use.

 

As far as gov't funding/subsidies those whould be based on income.

 

 

I have sympathy, deep sympathy, for those who are/were in your situation..however, just because I have sympathy does not mean that our government should pay for it...that is one of the biggest differences between the liberals and the conservatives.

 

Life is tough. I have heard the stories where families are struggling because they have one parent going to college and one trying to raise a family. There was a choice, you GO to college BEFORE you have children or AFTER they are in school..to me when you have a child, your main focus should be on raising those kids in the HERE and NOW..now is not the time to be planning your educational career so that in the future you can provide a better life for your children...it will be too late. I've heard many families decide to go to medical school because they always wanted to be a doctor or beautician school because they always wanted to design hairstyles....when you have a child, that is NOT the time to go and do your dream...in my book, all that goes on hold...you made a choice to have a child and your next choice should be to raise that child and once your dream or goal does not detract from their right to have a parent with them those early years, then go and do it.

 

We will bankrupt our country with all the situations where one's choice puts them in a tight survival spot. There have always been tight survival spots but folks managed. My great grandfather was widowed with 11 children when the oldest child was 13 down to infant...and believe me, it was not his choice to be widowed...but he did not have a single dime or benefit or concession in raising those children on his own...the community, the church, relatives did all they could but I'm sure many days they came up wanting.

 

You know going in that having a child is going to change your life...so you either put it off..or you embrace it and make better choices for them....the government has gotten into a pickle because since the 1950's and the push of social programs, rampant abuse has taken place, the churches and communities have cut out some of their programs because the gov't is going to handle it...we can't continue down this path and now it is time for the government to live on a budget...cut programs..cut spending....it has to be done or you will see massive crisis.

 

Tara (Hi Tara the liberator...I'm Tara the "liberalabominator" :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I see the difference, but then some would say that just because they work hard and can afford to buy nicer things they shouldn't be penalized for doing so. I still support taxing income.

 

"buying nicer things" is a choice.

taxing income eliminates that choice.

I prefer options that offer choices to people.

 

 

I didn't ask what was the govt. going to do, I asked what you wanted the govt. to do. (knowing how you would answer.) My point was I know you are much more conservative than I and don't like the gov telling you how to live you life, but you agreed when Cheryl says "we've got to put the pieces back together, promote more programs for marriages...encourage parenting classes...strengthen the family.." you want to tell others how to live their life. It just seemed to me there was a huge double standard going on. The gov can't judge everyone else based on our own morality. The gov can't say, sorry, I think it was your fault that you're a single mother because I don't believe in...or I would never make that choice based on my belief, so your choice is wrong. That's not the government's role. :001_cool:

 

 

I didn't say we should make choices for people or that we should be judging them --I agreed that we should be PROMOTING those options through private organizations w/ our OWN money as opposed to forcing the taxpayers to pay for Yet Another Gvt Program. That's not telling others how they should live their life anymore than the voluntary bill in question that uses a STANDARDIZED program would. The difference is in who is forced to fund those opportunities. Is that a double standard? That it's ok for the Gvt to tell people what to learn, when to learn, and how to learn, but not for private organizations to offer programs that do something similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO accreditation just lets the gov't control WHO is allowed to indoctrinate the children, making it that much more sure that they will be properly indoctrinated. Same for gov't funding of preschools - if they control the $$ they also get to say what is taught and how and by whom.

 

More importantly - kids this age need to be with their parents. The earlier and more thoroughly we break that bond, the faster our families (and society) fall apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter was in a place like this, she did the after care too. Actually she ended up just sleeping there, they called it an orphanage… I’m all for programs that keep zero to age 5 children with their moms. But if a mom chooses to work then she will be able to pay for preschool.

Edited by Angela
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....when you have a child, that is NOT the time to go and do your dream...in my book, all that goes on hold...you made a choice to have a child and your next choice should be to raise that child and once your dream or goal does not detract from their right to have a parent with them those early years, then go and do it.)

 

It is psychologically unhealthy for a parent to center their lives around a child for BOTH the parent and the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is psychologically unhealthy for a parent to center their lives around a child for BOTH the parent and the child.

 

 

This is outrageous. This is the crux of the issues in our society that is breaking down the fabric that holds us together as a nation.

 

I would pray that those that believe it is psychologically unhealthy for a mother to take on the role of mothering...to please not have children. They certainly deserve more than shelter and food and who is better equipped to give it to them than those who gave life to them. We are not talking about the crackheads and mothers who give birth to babies with fetal alcohol syndrome..we're talking about those mothers who decide to have a child and put it in daycare at 6 weeks so they can have a 'life'...believe me, I've been there..I was earning over 6 figures in a high profile position...when I stepped down to raise my children, I had very 'successful' women ask me how I could 'give up' all that I had worked for and the potential executive roles I was headed for.....my gosh, it was easy, it was for my children. I will have much greater impact on my society by raising 3 children who believe they are worthy and know how much they can contribute to this world through action, compassion and hard work.

 

I am shocked that a parent here would write that.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is outrageous. This is the crux of the issues in our society that is breaking down the fabric that holds us together as a nation.

 

I would pray that those that believe it is psychologically unhealthy for a mother to take on the role of mothering...to please not have children. They certainly deserve more than shelter and food and who is better equipped to give it to them than those who gave life to them. We are not talking about the crackheads and mothers who give birth to babies with fetal alcohol syndrome..we're talking about those mothers who decide to have a child and put it in daycare at 6 weeks so they can have a 'life'...believe me, I've been there..I was earning over 6 figures in a high profile position...when I stepped down to raise my children, I had very 'successful' women ask me how I could 'give up' all that I had worked for and the potential executive roles I was headed for.....my gosh, it was easy, it was for my children. I will have much greater impact on my society by raising 3 children who believe they are worthy and know how much they can contribute to this world through action, compassion and hard work.

 

I am shocked that a parent here would write that.

 

Tara

 

No, really, it is psychologically unhealthy for a mother to center her life around a child. I am not saying that it is impossible to SAH and have a healthy parent/child relationship. I am not saying all SAH parents are helicopter parents. I'm saying that when the adult has more invested in the child than in herself/himself, that is a recipe for co-dependence, entitlement mentality, depression, anxiety, and a whole host of other issues.

 

I would argue that OVER parenting causes many issues we see today. Kids are growing up with too much supervision and too much parental interference.

 

I would love to see some reputable statistics from you that show daycare is harmful for children.

 

I see where you are coming from. You made a decision to "give up your life" and you think since you did it, everyone else should do it too. Well, that's not reality. Everyone is not you. And not everyone who chooses to SAH has to give up a life either. My sole purpose in life is not my dd. I have an adult life, friends, fun, activities, and responsibilities that have nothing to do with her. She is going to grow up someday very very soon. As far as dd is concerned I am just working myself out of a job, then I will enjoy sharing in the parts of her life she chooses to share with me. Just as I don't share every aspect of my adult life with her, I don't expect her to do the same when she's an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that OVER parenting causes many issues we see today. Kids are growing up with too much supervision and too much parental interference.

 

I would love to see some reputable statistics from you that show daycare is harmful for children.

 

I see where you are coming from. You made a decision to "give up your life" and you think since you did it, everyone else should do it too. Well, that's not reality. Everyone is not you. And not everyone who chooses to SAH has to give up a life either. My sole purpose in life is not my dd. I have an adult life, friends, fun, activities, and responsibilities that have nothing to do with her. She is going to grow up someday very very soon. As far as dd is concerned I am just working myself out of a job, then I will enjoy sharing in the parts of her life she chooses to share with me. Just as I don't share every aspect of my adult life with her, I don't expect her to do the same when she's an adult.

 

 

You don't get it. I did not give up my "life"...I don't think that since I did it everyone else should to, it's what is morally dictated to us as human beings. We are not animals, well, heck more of us should be because atleast most animals take the time to rear their young. That's my point. I have a very active life alongside rearing my children...but, with my former career there is no way I could have been the effective parent that my children NEEDED....I knew many women who chose to stay in that career and see their children suffering... I also had the unique perspective of being a nanny for 2 years...I took care of hundreds of children and some on a daily basis for very 'successful' families...multi-million dollar homes, celebrities, presidents of corporations, high profile attorneys...and ALL their children were aching for attention from their parents.

 

I had to have a horribly painful discussion with a very successful couple...they were international tax attorneys and traveled quite a bit...when they were home they would hire me on the weekends to stay with their children from 8am-6pm so they could get some time together...it was a set thing, every Saturday and Sunday...the kids were in a very expensive school during the week and maybe saw their parents 2 hours a day. I stayed with the kids for a couple of weeks while the parents were in Europe...their kids begged for me and their parents were thrilled..they felt they were doing their kids a service by paying for the most engaging nanny they'd ever seen. But, the problem was, I was becoming their mother/father figure..they wanted me to spend another week with their children while they went to China...I declined...they were in a panic and kept calling me, I couldn't face them with the truth, how could a 21 year old explain to very successful attorneys that they were failing their children? I felt it would be disrespectful to do so...my naivete! I finally had to answer their calls...I explained to them my position and how I could see the children becoming dependent on me and how I could also see how much the children longed for their parents to be with them...he was very shocked to hear this thinking they had been doing the best thing for them by providing them a very expensive playmate/nanny....

 

Two years later, I ran into that family again...the mother had quit her job, the father had cut back on his travel and they thanked me for showing me their children needed them...I actually saw them WITH their children at a park having a blast....

 

I have a LOT of history to back up my points, not just MY decision, but also common sense in what children need. I never said the mother had to GIVE up her life...but a life that will take you AWAY from your children is not the best choice. I train horses, I am a leader for a scouting troop, I organize campouts, I teach my children...I have not "given up my life" I've changed my life to give my children the best of me...not the least of me.

 

I am able to do all these things and for a purpose...you can have a life rich while being with your children, leading by example...I want my children to know that life is about giving to others (training the horses so we can offer free lessons for foster children in our community), about sacrificing (giving up that income and all that goes with it), about commitment (committing to be there when they fall, when they suffer, when they have moments of joy to share, when they have ideas they want to explore, when they see a peer in need and show them how to help), and about hard work (our school, training the horses...even an abused one that needed a caring home, organizing campouts/events for each scout meeting, gardening, keeping up a farm/house)....

 

You just can't do those things if they're in daycare and no matter what 'reputable' studies I present you would pick apart...you can not run double blind studies on children and get a subjective conclusion...I can't even believe you are asking for studies on why putting a child in daycare for 80% of their waking hours is not a desirable thing...I ask you to spend 5 days in a day care setting and watch that child who has a toy ripped from his hands or is slapped and no one notices...he learns that slapping gets him what he wants, that toy, or he realizes that when he falls and hurts himself, that the 'nurturers' are too busy breaking up a fight to comfort him...or you're the child with a fever who feels horrible but the parent won't/can't take a sick day to spend with their child...or the moment a child creates a picture and wants to show it to his Mommy when he's finished and no one really cares....this is my cry out for all those children who don't have the words yet to express..

 

How many kids beg to stay home and give up because they realize their parents aren't listening....my heart breaks and you want studies.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to have a horribly painful discussion with a very successful couple...they were international tax attorneys and traveled quite a bit...when they were home they would hire me on the weekends to stay with their children from 8am-6pm so they could get some time together...it was a set thing, every Saturday and Sunday...the kids were in a very expensive school during the week and maybe saw their parents 2 hours a day. I stayed with the kids for a couple of weeks while the parents were in Europe...their kids begged for me and their parents were thrilled..they felt they were doing their kids a service by paying for the most engaging nanny they'd ever seen. But, the problem was, I was becoming their mother/father figure..they wanted me to spend another week with their children while they went to China...I declined...they were in a panic and kept calling me, I couldn't face them with the truth, how could a 21 year old explain to very successful attorneys that they were failing their children? I felt it would be disrespectful to do so...my naivete! I finally had to answer their calls...I explained to them my position and how I could see the children becoming dependent on me and how I could also see how much the children longed for their parents to be with them...he was very shocked to hear this thinking they had been doing the best thing for them by providing them a very expensive playmate/nanny....

 

 

The conversation here reminds me of that old story about the blind men and the elephant.

 

If when you think "working mother" you think of families like this or like in the Nanny Diaries, you are going to have a very different perspective on working mothers than if you think of, for example, the music teacher at the public school who spends weekends attending medieval reenactments with her husband and children. She and her husband are engaged and loving with their kids, but the cost of living is high here and one salary isn't cutting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just group all "working mothers" into one category whether they are rich or poor. Do the issues really change depending on the reason why a mother goes to work? Either way a zero age child is still in an institution & a working mother can pay for preschool.

Edited by Angela
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just group all "working mothers" into one category whether they are rich or poor. Do the issues really change depending on the reason why a mother goes to work? Either way a zero age child is still in an institution & a working mother can pay for preschool.

 

No, as working mother cannot always pay for preschool. I know many who cannot - they work to provide the basics of life (even some 2 income families.) I know the standard response on this board is that she shouldn't have had kids, Dad should work harder, they should sacrifice more to live on their already below poverty level income or some other such idea.

 

What happens to these children? They either get subsidized care (ie. from the gov't) or they go to the lady down the street's house where they get stuck in a play pen all day while the "caretaker" watches soaps.

 

I think that a child is best served by being home with a parent, but I also understand that we don't live in a perfect world. You can reduce your grocery and electric bills, but you can't eliminate them all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just group all "working mothers" into one category whether they are rich or poor. Do the issues really change depending on the reason why a mother goes to work? Either way a zero age child is still in an institution & a working mother can pay for preschool.

 

I don't know that we are specifically talking about a "zero age child." I was picturing a 3-year-old preschool class, for example.

 

I think to say that "a working mother can pay for preschool" is to make some staggering assumptions about the cost of preschools relative to earning potential for many women.

 

But I was addressing specifically the side conversation about the morality, so to speak, of putting children in daycare. If you are talking about the effects of daycare or preschool on children, the kind of home environment they go home to absolutely affects them. Children who go from long days in preschool or daycare to the care of a nanny or babysitter in the evenings and on weekends are living a very different life from children who go from preschool or daycare to loving interaction with their parents on the evenings and weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already have "More at Four" preschool in the ps system. I fear we will one day have "Success at six weeks" if we continue down this road of government funded childrearing.

 

Our county already has Head Start and Smart Start programs as well. I served on the board of one of the Smart Start preschool programs here for more than a year and got a taste of how government run programs go. For one whatever money they are given is never going to be enough. Close to the end of the fiscal year there is a flurry of spending to make sure there is no money left. Why? The thinking is, if we don't spend it, they'll cut our budget by that amount next year. If we do spend it, it will prove that we need at least that amount, and can push for more for next year. I am/was of the mind that if we haven't needed it up to now, perhaps we don't need it.

 

This particular program was a half day program and therefore did not have to pass state licensing. We did look into getting the licensing to increase the hours the center could be open. There are so many hoops to jump through, from the expected stuff like fire code to the requirement of having posters, books etc... about the "many kinds" of families.

 

I think the root of all of these programs is the NEA's (and others of their ilk) desire to indoctrinate the children of this country with our tax money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm opposed to early childhood ed programs for several reasons:

 

#1 I don't think preschoolers and younger need it. I think they need to go play in the sunshine and mud and eat cookies and milk and fall asleep under a tree.

 

#2 The vast majority of such programs are just glorified daycare programs. I'm don't support daycare programs either. I would rather support a mother staying home and sharing cookie and milk under previously mentioned tree.

 

#3 The vast majority fo the programs include a lot of social enginneering programs. Lots of books about how having 2 mommies is okay and religions are equal and blabblahblah pc mumbo-jumbo. ABCs and 123s are only a small part of most of the curriculums.

 

#4 By the 4th grade, studies have shown all the kids have leveled out, you can't tell which ones went to preschool and which ones didn't. There's also some evidence that isn't discussed much that some kids being pushed so young are actually hurt academicly by the experience.

 

#5 I think preschoolers, and absolutely younger ones, should be cared for the majority of the day by a loving relative, preferably mom and/or dad. NOT by a state provider. The idea of my 2 or 4 yr old spending 4 - 8 hours at a facility with people who altho they might genuinely care, simply cannot love them as I do, literally makes me want to cry. I feel nothing but sorrow for families that have no choice because the gov't thinks it better to fund a stranger taking care of their kid than to give equal funding to a mother so she can stay home and do it herself.

 

ETA: #6 COST woudl be another for me. I think there are better uses for gov't funds. Esp right now.

 

 

Absolutely. You've covered all my reasons but one. This sort of thing starts out for people who "want it" and quickly becomes mandatory. This is just the way our government sneaks into taking over yet another area where they have no business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going into the working mom/sahm debate. Not every family is the same and I embrace that fact.

 

What I *will* say is that I support government support for early childhood education programs for lower income families. Not all families can survive on one parent's income. Not all families have two parents.

 

It will not become mandatory. Head Start has been in existence since 1973. That's 35+ years. Saying it will become mandatory is nothing more than a scare tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh POOH, POOH, POOH! (although this is right after MM's post, it isn't directed towards it.)

 

I absolutely am centered around my kids, don't care who knows it, and I don't believe for a minute it's unhealthy for anyone. When it's time to let go, you let go and find something else to focus on. We've got one in college 24 hours + away, and he's doing great. He doesn't call mommy every fifteen minutes for support. He's his own person now. The other four are going to get the same "centering attention" and then be cut loose.

 

That doesn't mean I won't be there for them (duh) but while they need it they've got my full attention. What a load of crock to feed to mothers. Especially mothers with young children. Yeah, it's going to be tough for some of them while the rest of us float along with dhs that enable us to stay home. Tough or not, littles are better off with their moms, and there's nothing wrong with being a 100% involved, obsessed, devoted mom.

Edited by Remudamom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh POOH, POOH, POOH! (although this is right after MM's post, it isn't directed towards it.)

 

I absolutely am centered around my kids, don't care who knows it, and I don't believe for a minute it's unhealthy for anyone. When it's time to let go, you let go and find something else to focus on. We've got one in college 24 hours + away, and he's doing great. He doesn't call mommy every fifteen minutes for support. He's his own person now. The other four are going to get the same "centering attention" and then be cut loose.

 

That doesn't mean I won't be there for them (duh) but while they need it they've got my full attention. What a load of crock to feed to mothers. Especially mothers with young children. Yeah, it's going to be tough for some of them while the rest of us float along with dhs that enable us to stay home. Tough or not, littles are better off with their moms, and there's nothing wrong with being a 100% involved, obsessed, devoted mom.

 

Where's the rep button when I need it?!

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough or not, littles are better off with their moms, and there's nothing wrong with being a 100% involved, obsessed, devoted mom.

 

True. However, I distinctly remember some of the LLL moms talking about me behind their hands because I left my four month old with my mom and several bottles of expressed breast milk to attend my 10-year high school reunion for four hours. There are those who would say that any interest a mother has outside her children is selfish and not to be indulged, to which I say POOH POOH POOH. Like many things, it's a balance, and moms on both sides are guilty of flogging those on the other side.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thoughtfully read every post in this thread over the past few days and I have actually changed my original line of thinking! (Shocking, I know! :w00t:)

 

I would like to see government support for early childhood education for:

 

1) All children with special needs -- it really, really helped my youngest daughter!!

 

2) Single working moms (be they never married, divorced, widowed, etc.)

 

3) Married working moms who make less than $___ per year (that salary cap would vary, depending on where you live -- if you're a working mom in Peoria, for instance, then $40,000+ may be considered a high salary and, therefore, you can afford to pay for your own childcare / preschool if you choose to work, but if you're working in Washington DC or New York City, it would be considered barely getting by)

 

Of course, as I said before, I don't want it to be mandatory for all children -- if you don't want it, you should have every right to say no....just like we've all said no to public school already (or at least most of us have, at some point)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's what is morally dictated to us as human beings.

 

Just because that's what is dictated morally to YOU as a human being, doesn't mean everyone else believes the same thing.

 

Tough or not, littles are better off with their moms, and there's nothing wrong with being a 100% involved, obsessed, devoted mom.

 

I know several psychologists that would disagree with this. Some little children are much better off with a HAPPY mom who is successful rather than a miserable woman made to feel as though she is forced to stay at home just because some people want to play the "moral superiority" game and lay a guilt trip on her.

Edited by Academy of Jedi Arts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. However, I distinctly remember some of the LLL moms talking about me behind their hands because I left my four month old with my mom and several bottles of expressed breast milk to attend my 10-year high school reunion for four hours. There are those who would say that any interest a mother has outside her children is selfish and not to be indulged, to which I say POOH POOH POOH. Like many things, it's a balance, and moms on both sides are guilty of flogging those on the other side.

 

Tara

 

Yep, POOH, POOH, POOH on those moms. Grandmas are the next best thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking it would be best if I refrain from giving my opinions on 99% of the psychologists out there.

 

And moms that can't be happy raising the children they brought into the world? If they really aren't happy maybe it's time to man up and quit being so self centered.

 

:Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim:

 

Hallelujah....I hear angels and trumpets loudly singing!!!

 

 

I will add that our SOCIETY (mainly Hollywood and very leftist bent members of society) are those that are making that woman miserable...I have NEVER met a mother who regretted staying home, but I have met MANY mothers who regretted working from all socioeconomic levels.

 

And I firmly feel that those in NEED can get it from non-profit agencies and the need will be taken care of...it's just not the government's responsibility to fix all the needs...we are free to make choices and those choices lead to tough spots...again, how did my g-grandfather survive with 10 more children than most of these single mothers have and no government assistance...we came from a long line of faith and love no matter our economic condition....we need a lot more of that and a lot less of dependency on the govt.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking it would be best if I refrain from giving my opinions on 99% of the psychologists out there.

 

And moms that can't be happy raising the children they brought into the world? If they really aren't happy maybe it's time to man up and quit being so self centered.

I know you have more than enough friends, but right about now I totally want you on my friends list! Brava.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim::Angel_anim:

 

I will add that our SOCIETY (mainly Hollywood and very leftist bent members of society) are those that are making that woman miserable...Tara

 

The nebulous "Hollywood" is quite the scapegoat around here. I've yet to find a human being so malleable that he is as profoundly affected by "Hollywood" as is depicted here.

 

Kids shooting up their schools? Blame it on Hollywood.

People dressing provocatively? Blame it on Hollywood.

Teen pregnancy? Blame it on Hollywood.

Promiscuity? Blame it on Hollywood.

Declining church attendance? Blame it on Hollywood.

Rising crime? Blame it on Hollywood.

 

I'd wager that Hollywood only wishes it were as powerful as it is made out to be.

 

It's not Hollywood's fault. It's ... it's .... it's the fault of VIDEO GAMES.:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking it would be best if I refrain from giving my opinions on 99% of the psychologists out there.

 

And moms that can't be happy raising the children they brought into the world? If they really aren't happy maybe it's time to man up and quit being so self centered.

 

Yeah, why study actual science when we can just spout our own opinions all day to make ourselves feel better. Then we can point fingers at other people we don't even know for additional ego boosting if needed.

 

A working mother is raising the children she brought into the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, why study actual science when we can just spout our own opinions all day to make ourselves feel better. Then we can point fingers at other people we don't even know for additional ego boosting if needed.

 

A working mother is raising the children she brought into the world.

 

 

would you like to define "actual science" vs spouting our opinions to make ourselves feel better? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nebulous "Hollywood" is quite the scapegoat around here. I've yet to find a human being so malleable that he is as profoundly affected by "Hollywood" as is depicted here.

 

Kids shooting up their schools? Blame it on Hollywood.

People dressing provocatively? Blame it on Hollywood.

Teen pregnancy? Blame it on Hollywood.

Promiscuity? Blame it on Hollywood.

Declining church attendance? Blame it on Hollywood.

Rising crime? Blame it on Hollywood.

 

I'd wager that Hollywood only wishes it were as powerful as it is made out to be.

It's not Hollywood's fault. It's ... it's .... it's the fault of VIDEO GAMES.:tongue_smilie:

 

ROTFLOL!

 

:iagree:

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...