Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Momto6inIN

10 hour school day?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't believe that "easier" is always *BETTER* .  Whether that's for individuals, parents, families or our society in general. 


Do you think you should decide what ‘better’ is for another family? Is this about objectively being ‘better’ or just different from what you’d choose to do?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

 

What does that mean, in the context of this discussion? Do you think it's preferable for working families to have to struggle to afford before and afterschool childcare, or for children to be in a latchkey situation for years of their childhood, or for families to remain in poverty because they can't afford for both parents to work...? I'm not assuming what you meant; I'm outlining some of the alternatives to an extended school day (and the situation that we currently have). I'm not assuming, I'm asking: For *whom* should *what* be harder instead of easier?

It's not really about what *SHOULD* be harder.  It's more or less about what is the net benefit.  Are kids, overall, going to benefit from the concept of such a problem.  Will society benefit overall from such a problem.  Are there things that could be negatives that we aren't thinking about.  And is this really how taxpayer dollars spent from a beneficial standpoint.  

Just because something is *easier* for X or Y or Z....that doesn't mean that it's *better* for A or B or C.  And I think it's been shown that in a whole lot of cases, just because something is *easier* that doesn't automatically mean it's *better.*

 

It sucks for a "working family" (and really, what does that even mean....are most families in the US living off of some royal allowance or something?  Most families in the US have at least one, and probably two WORKING parents.....so doesn't that mean most families are "working families?) to have to struggle to pay for childcare.  I have struggled to pay for child care.  I have struggled to simply ARRANGE child care within the times needed to say NOTHING of paying for it.  Does this proposal do ANYTHING to handle those people who work overnights?  When DH was laid off, I worked 5:30pm, to 5am at an Amazon warehouse. PLUS full time at CVS, and many nights stocking on truck nights which fell on the nights I wasn't at the Amazon warehouse.  Has anyone ever tried to find OVERNIGHT care for kids?  If you think afterschool care is difficult to find and pay for, try looking for overnight care for 3 kids when you are working OT during Christmas and your spouse has to stay overnight out of state for an interview. 

 

Childcare isn't some new struggle for people. It is literally a struggle as old as time.  Making this struggle "easier" is a great idea......but that doesn't mean that *THIS* idea of requiring schools to be open and available 10+ hours a day, with government funding and all the rules that come with that, and requiring that schools be open year round, 10+hours a day, while also requiring a whole second staff because teachers aren't required to cover more than they already.....................that's simply not the solution I see as being better.

 

 

Someone mentioned vouchers....perhaps that's a better solution.  Or, perhaps instead of government handling the before and after school care, the government simply refines and/or offers better grants to the groups/charities/companies that provide those things.  Maybe it means that laws regarding kids being on their own are better refined (ie more clear age definitions, or maybe we stop placing parents who let their kids play outside run afowl of the law...or maybe it's something else.)  Basically, I am not opposed to helping people.  I am all for helping people in a way that make things better for all.  I simply don't believe that government run daycare through the school setting is the way that will be good for that.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


Do you think you should decide what ‘better’ is for another family? Is this about objectively being ‘better’ or just different from what you’d choose to do?

Considering that I am a voter in this society, and a taxpayer in this country, yes, I do believe that my opinion actually matters when it comes to the laws that are proposed in this country.  Even if that opinion differs from yours or someone elses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Considering that I am a voter in this society, and a taxpayer in this country, yes, I do believe that my opinion actually matters when it comes to the laws that are proposed in this country.  Even if that opinion differs from yours or someone elses.


Those other families are taxpayers too and what they want/need is equally important. That’s not what I asked tho. I asked what evidence you have to demonstrate that your preferred model is better.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@happysmileylady, obviously, everyone understands the meaning of your phrase about easier not necessarily being better, so there was no need to explain your verbiage. But thank you for outlining some of our opinions on the topic at hand.

On one hand, childcare has always been a struggle. On the other hand, anyone who thinks that today's scenario is the same as for any other generation, is not paying attention. Tax structures, college costs (including parental student loans), health care, inflation, wage stagnation, all of these are moved goalposts. It's a different world, requiring different solutions.

"Working families" - I don't really believe you need this spelled out, but just in case, I will explain that I am using that expression within the context of this discussion, to differentiate between families that have all parents working full-time (with an understanding that there are sole breadwinner, single parents as well as two-income, two-parents-working families) and families that have a parent who can provide childcare at home and/or have a relative who will do it for discounted or free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


Those other families are taxpayers too and what they want/need is equally important. That’s not what I asked tho. I asked what evidence you have to demonstrate that your preferred model is better.

What preferred model?  I didn't present one.  

What I DID say was

Quote

 I think the government will be terrible at it, I think the government will be terrible at managing the financial aspect of it, I think there could be a series of unintended consequences, I don't think it's the government's job, and I think it's a bad use of taxpayer dollars

Why do I think the government will be terrible at it...........because I think the government mucks up most things that they attempt to provide.  

Why do I think the governement will be terrible at the financial aspect....because I find that most government programs are terribly run from a financial standpoint and terribly bogged down in so much bureaucracy and paperwork.

What unintended consequences....well that could be anything.  One of the funny things about "unintended consequences" is that they are often unknown before they happen.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, happysmileylady said:

What preferred model?  I didn't present one.  

What I DID say was

Why do I think the government will be terrible at it...........because I think the government mucks up most things that they attempt to provide.  

Why do I think the governement will be terrible at the financial aspect....because I find that most government programs are terribly run from a financial standpoint and terribly bogged down in so much bureaucracy and paperwork.

What unintended consequences....well that could be anything.  One of the funny things about "unintended consequences" is that they are often unknown before they happen.

 

You’re ‘preferred’ model is obv. either non-governmental or non-existent. I’m asking what evidence you have to support the idea that this is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You’re ‘preferred’ model is obv. either non-governmental or non-existent. I’m asking what evidence you have to support the idea that this is better.

I think the government mucks up most things they attempt to provide.  I find most government programs to be terribly run from a financial standpoint and to be terribly bogged down with way too much bureaucracy and paperwork.  

But.....that is all why I think THIS particular proposal is a bad idea.  

That doesn't mean I am completely opposed to every single governmental idea, nor doesn't mean that I prefer help be non-existent.  

I am totally and completely willing to examine individual proposals for what they offer and to form an opinion based of various an assorted proposals offered.  The fact that I don't think this one works does not mean I will automatically be against some other proposal that may or may not offer some federal assistance or involvement.  It certainly doesn't have to be all or nothing.  

I don't have to come up with my own proposal or idea to have a valid opinion on a proposal or idea that someone else has presented.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think the government mucks up most things they attempt to provide.  I find most government programs to be terribly run from a financial standpoint and to be terribly bogged down with way too much bureaucracy and paperwork.  

But.....that is all why I think THIS particular proposal is a bad idea.  

That doesn't mean I am completely opposed to every single governmental idea, nor doesn't mean that I prefer help be non-existent.  

I am totally and completely willing to examine individual proposals for what they offer and to form an opinion based of various an assorted proposals offered.  The fact that I don't think this one works does not mean I will automatically be against some other proposal that may or may not offer some federal assistance or involvement.  It certainly doesn't have to be all or nothing.  

I don't have to come up with my own proposal or idea to have a valid opinion on a proposal or idea that someone else has presented.  

 I didn’t ask you to come up with your own idea. I don’t think that’s necessary at all. I asked you to to provide some evidence for why this this idea was objectively bad or worse than the status quo (for un- and under-supervised kids). It sounds like you do not have any reason to believe that this program would be different from the National school lunch program or Head Start, both of which have historically low numbers for fraud, waste and abuse—both of which are heavily audited and government funded. I’m asking you to step away from ideology and look at what we know works/serves communities and families in need. Is there room for improvement, always. Is doing nothing  ‘better’? I’ve found no evidence of such but welcome new information. The needs are evident.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's a good idea to have a discussion about what would be better in general, though without the threat of government mandates or financial strings.

I think it's a combination of things that each family can adapt to their situation.  Low-cost, no-frills after-school supervision.  Letting more kids go home and look after themselves without fear of governmental interference.  Better access to enrichment options, e.g., bus drop-off at programs off school premises.  Better connections among people in the neighborhood who could help each other out.  More relaxed rules for school-aged home child care.  Possible supports for extended family care.  More accessible tax deductions for child care.  Probably a hundred other ideas, most of which can and should co-exist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 I didn’t ask you to come up with your own idea. I don’t think that’s necessary at all. I asked you to to provide some evidence for why this this idea was objectively bad or worse than the status quo (for un- and under-supervised kids). It sounds like you do not have any reason to believe that this program would be different from the National school lunch program or Head Start, both of which have historically low numbers for fraud, waste and abuse—both of which are heavily audited and government funded. I’m asking you to step away from ideology and look at what we know works/serves communities and families in need. Is there room for improvement, always. Is doing nothing  ‘better’? I’ve found no evidence of such but welcome new information. The needs are evident.

 No, that's not what you said.

28 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

asked what evidence you have to demonstrate that your preferred model is better.

Which you then elaborated on with

26 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You’re ‘preferred’ model is obv. either non-governmental or non-existent.

 

 

This proposal has school buildings staying open more than  hours per day, year round.  It has very few guidelines on how the program should be run or how the money should be granted, and I don't think it has any guidelines on where the money comes from.  Schools in low income areas already STRUGGLE to even teach kids how to read, and STRUGGLE to even keep kids warm enough, cool enough or safe enough.  They struggle to provide books for teachers to teach with.  And now, we are supposed to expect that some new federal program meant to provide daycare to kids in those same areas, is supposed to be a great use of taxpayer money and a benefit to kids, this program is somehow going to be better run than the already struggling school system there?  It's supposed to help kids more than what is already NOT helping them in those places?  And this is supposed to happen WITHOUT requiring more from teachers, AND it doesn't really outline where all that money is supposed to come from.    No.......I am not ok with any of that.  And I don't have to demonstrate that my preferred model is better in order to think this proposal is a bad idea.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, I think it's a good idea to have a discussion about what would be better in general, though without the threat of government mandates or financial strings.

I think it's a combination of things that each family can adapt to their situation.  Low-cost, no-frills after-school supervision.  Letting more kids go home and look after themselves without fear of governmental interference.  Better access to enrichment options, e.g., bus drop-off at programs off school premises.  Better connections among people in the neighborhood who could help each other out.  More relaxed rules for school-aged home child care.  Possible supports for extended family care.  More accessible tax deductions for child care.  Probably a hundred other ideas, most of which can and should co-exist.

Yes to all of this.  I have no problem discussing any of this.   Things like better defining ages that kids are allowed to stay at home. I am totally interested in the idea of school buses dropping kids off at their local dance or gymnastics or martial arts lessons.

Edited by happysmileylady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 5:23 PM, Frances said:

I think the biggest difference might be for kids who are introverts, like me. Even with just a regular school day, it was often tough to find enough alone time. I stayed up late reading many nights partly due to a love of reading and partly just to get some alone time. While you can in theory do that in the after school setting you describe, I think it’s more difficult.

 

 

This was me. I don't know how much of it was I was an introvert and how much of it was I was an outcast with no friends. Sitting alone at home is less humiliating than sitting in a crowded school alone. I also have difficulty concentrating with noise so I wouldn't even be able to read. It would be like extending torture that many more hours.

 

I have a son though that would be super happy to have kids to play tag with for hours after school. He would love it.

I also know that there are kids out there where every minute away from home is a good thing and it has nothing to do with money.

 

I don't know what I think of this bill. I believe some families could use help but normalizing kids being gone from home so long is sad. I also would rather see families not stretched so thin and part of that would be fixing the health care system and providing a reasonably affordable public university education. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 No, that's not what you said.

Which you then elaborated on with

 

 

This proposal has school buildings staying open more than  hours per day, year round.  It has very few guidelines on how the program should be run or how the money should be granted, and I don't think it has any guidelines on where the money comes from.  Schools in low income areas already STRUGGLE to even teach kids how to read, and STRUGGLE to even keep kids warm enough, cool enough or safe enough.  They struggle to provide books for teachers to teach with.  And now, we are supposed to expect that some new federal program meant to provide daycare to kids in those same areas, is supposed to be a great use of taxpayer money and a benefit to kids, this program is somehow going to be better run than the already struggling school system there?  It's supposed to help kids more than what is already NOT helping them in those places?  And this is supposed to happen WITHOUT requiring more from teachers, AND it doesn't really outline where all that money is supposed to come from.    No.......I am not ok with any of that.  And I don't have to demonstrate that my preferred model is better in order to think this proposal is a bad idea.  


This is a loosely outlined proposal, not a law and not regulations (which follow the passage of a law). The things you just outlined are all part of the legislative and rule-making process, not part of any initial proposal. It’s ok tho. I know we disagree that it’s enough to be against things that meet objective needs without providing some alternative or solution that also meets those needs. You said that something else was better so I was simply following up to find out what that was. It’s ok to have no alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes to all of this.  I have no problem discussing any of this.   Things like better defining ages that kids are allowed to stay at home. I am totally interested in the idea of school buses dropping kids off at their local dance or gymnastics or tai kwan do lessons.  


All of which cost money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, I think it's a good idea to have a discussion about what would be better in general, though without the threat of government mandates or financial strings.

I think it's a combination of things that each family can adapt to their situation.  Low-cost, no-frills after-school supervision.  Letting more kids go home and look after themselves without fear of governmental interference.  Better access to enrichment options, e.g., bus drop-off at programs off school premises.  Better connections among people in the neighborhood who could help each other out.  More relaxed rules for school-aged home child care.  Possible supports for extended family care.  More accessible tax deductions for child care.  Probably a hundred other ideas, most of which can and should co-exist.


I am all about brainstorming solutions. I am not cool with burying my head in the sand about *all* available service delivery mechanisms because they don’t suit a particular ideology. Many of the things you mentioned tho do come at taxpayer expense. That doesn’t bother me. The feeling I got was that any taxpayer expense for childcare WRT to working families was misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, vouchers for child care for low income already exist in every state I have worked in (and I think at least part of the funding is federal). Programs are provided in private for and non-profit centers that choose to take the vouchers and are eligible for the federal nutrition program. In some states, this is rolled into VPK at age 4. No center is forced to take said vouchers. Some such programs offer extended hours and are open overnight for parents who work shifts. All are required to meet state standards.  Churches and religious groups can accept said vouchers should they choose to open their child care programs to the public, but can then not discriminate based on religion (in general, such programs are required to accept everyone on a space-available basis, although they can set requirements (the most common being toilet training, since non-toilet trained children have more requirements including fewer children and more adults per group, bathroom facilities physically connected to the classroom, running water in the classroom, etc).  Programs such as Head Start, Early Start, Title I ECED, and similar programs also have financial requirements. 

 

It seems likely that after school care vouchers will take a similar model, where low income families will get a reduced rate, and there will be a range of options available. Most schools do not want, and indeed, would struggle to have the entire school building open extra hours because cleaning and maintenance has to happen sometime, so after school programs typically use the cafeteria or gym and playground. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


This is a loosely outlined proposal, not a law and not regulations (which follow the passage of a law). The things you just outlined are all part of the legislative and rule-making process, not part of any initial proposal. It’s ok tho. I know we disagree that it’s enough to be against things that meet objective needs without providing some alternative or solution that also meets those needs. You said that something else was better so I was simply following up to find out what that was. It’s ok to have no alternative.

I don't believe I did ever say "something else was better."  All I said was that just because something is easier that doesn't mean it's better.  That doesn't mean what we have is better, it simply means that just because a proposal might make something easier, that doesn't automatically mean it makes it better.  If something doesn't improve (ie make it better) a situation, that doesn't mean the situation as it stands is automatically better than the proposal, it simply means the proposal isn't a better solution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Of course they do.  As does this.  Never once did I state that I objected to any and all financial costs.  


Right. You said some other unspecified thing may be better but were fine as long as those poor unfortunate souls paid for it themselves or adopted your childcare model. Are you done with the gymnastics now? The bottom line is that you didn’t/don’t support any government funding for working families who need care. That’s fine. Just be honest about that.

You have no evidence to support the extra ‘burden’ of opening a gym or playground after hours (this creates jobs, no?) or any evidence to support the idea that schools don’t want it or need this kind of funding. Your opposition is purely based on ideology, and that’s ok. It’s just dishonest to claim a factual basis for that opposition. 
 

What we do know is that there is a need, a problem. The focus should be on how best to flexibly meet that need, nationwide, or tweak this *proposal* so it’s more workable. Nothing should be off the table at this point.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


I am all about brainstorming solutions. I am not cool with burying my head in the sand about *all* available service delivery mechanisms because they don’t suit a particular ideology. Many of the things you mentioned tho do come at taxpayer expense. That doesn’t bother me. The feeling I got was that any taxpayer expense for childcare WRT to working families was misplaced.

I would rather it could be done without taxpayer funding, but I am not totally against taxpayer funding.  I do think it's misguided to think there shouldn't be a family cost to child care for young / immature kids.  It's a need that is primarily a family responsibility.  But communities can work together to make many things work better.  I mean, it's my responsibility to feed my family, but I don't grow the food myself nor deal directly with the farmer.  The community has come up with lots of options over the years for feeding families; government involvement is a relatively minor aspect of it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I would rather it could be done without taxpayer funding, but I am not totally against taxpayer funding.  I do think it's misguided to think there shouldn't be a family cost to child care for young / immature kids.  It's a need that is primarily a family responsibility.  But communities can work together to make many things work better.  I mean, it's my responsibility to feed my family, but I don't grow the food myself nor deal directly with the farmer.  The community has come up with lots of options over the years for feeding families; government involvement is a relatively minor aspect of it.


Of course, including government farm subsidies which make it easier (and better for me) to feed my family affordably. I do not know or believe that government is the solution in every community. By the same token, I cannot dismiss it out of hand.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

FWIW, vouchers for child care for low income already exist in every state I have worked in (and I think at least part of the funding is federal). Programs are provided in private for and non-profit centers that choose to take the vouchers and are eligible for the federal nutrition program. In some states, this is rolled into VPK at age 4. No center is forced to take said vouchers. Some such programs offer extended hours and are open overnight for parents who work shifts. All are required to meet state standards.  Churches and religious groups can accept said vouchers should they choose to open their child care programs to the public, but can then not discriminate based on religion (in general, such programs are required to accept everyone on a space-available basis, although they can set requirements (the most common being toilet training, since non-toilet trained children have more requirements including fewer children and more adults per group, bathroom facilities physically connected to the classroom, running water in the classroom, etc).  Programs such as Head Start, Early Start, Title I ECED, and similar programs also have financial requirements. 

 

It seems likely that after school care vouchers will take a similar model, where low income families will get a reduced rate, and there will be a range of options available. Most schools do not want, and indeed, would struggle to have the entire school building open extra hours because cleaning and maintenance has to happen sometime, so after school programs typically use the cafeteria or gym and playground. 


This was my thought as well. Most of these programs end at school age, first grade tho. As a society, we’ve decided that is too young to be left unsupervised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on the "is easier actually better" question is slightly different. I realize it makes things easier on families who need child care options and it fills a short term need. And because of this it is perceived as a better option from their perspective. 

But what are the long term consequences for these kids who are potentially going to be put into programs like this and what are the long term implications to society as a whole when spending 10+ hours a day in an institutionalized setting becomes the norm?

Do those long term (in my way of thinking very likely negative) consequences outweigh the short term benefit? How do we balance that?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


Right. You said some other unspecified thing may be better but were fine as long as those poor unfortunate souls paid for it themselves or adopted your childcare model. Are you done with the gymnastics now? The bottom line is that you didn’t/don’t support any government funding for working families who need care. That’s fine. Just be honest about that.

You have no evidence to support the extra ‘burden’ of opening a gym or playground after hours (this creates jobs, no?) or any evidence to support the idea that schools don’t want it or need this kind of funding. Your opposition is purely based on ideology, and that’s ok. It’s just dishonest to claim a factual basis for that opposition. 
 

What we do know is that there is a need, a problem. The focus should be on how best to flexibly meet that need, nationwide, or tweak this *proposal* so it’s more workable. Nothing should be off the table at this point.

And this is why it's so difficult to have productive discussions some times.  

Please, once again, point out exactly where I said "some other unspecified thing may be better"

Please point out exactly which post you used to determine that I don't/didn't support ANY government funding for working families who need care.

 

I am being honest.  Are you being honest about the presumptions you are making vs actually reading what was posted?

 

The words I actually used are that I don't think THIS proposal is a good use of tax payer dollars.  That DOES NOT mean I am opposed to any government spending at all.  You clearly CHOOSE to believe I am lying, and it's pretty difficult to have a discussion when someone refuses to believe that the opinion someone states they have is the opinion they actually have.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

My take on the "is easier actually better" question is slightly different. I realize it makes things easier on families who need child care options and it fills a short term need. And because of this it is perceived as a better option from their perspective. 

But what are the long term consequences for these kids who are potentially going to be put into programs like this and what are the long term implications to society as a whole when spending 10+ hours a day in an institutionalized setting becomes the norm?

Do those long term (in my way of thinking very likely negative) consequences outweigh the short term benefit? How do we balance that?


Legit question. I think we should ask the people who were latchkey kids when two working parents became the norm (30 years ago) and before this was recognized as a societal vs. purely personal issue. I was perfectly happy at home, with my brother, skinning my nose on an upside down bicycle but that’s not allowed anymore. It was also FREE for my parents, lol. I feel a bit resentful of the ‘institutional’ language tho because I think it betrays a bias against publicly funded facilities regardless of their appearance, function, or purpose.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

And this is why it's so difficult to have productive discussions some times.  

Please, once again, point out exactly where I said "some other unspecified thing may be better"

Please point out exactly which post you used to determine that I don't/didn't support ANY government funding for working families who need care.

 

I am being honest.  Are you being honest about the presumptions you are making vs actually reading what was posted?

 

The words I actually used are that I don't think THIS proposal is a good use of tax payer dollars.  That DOES NOT mean I am opposed to any government spending at all.  You clearly CHOOSE to believe I am lying, and it's pretty difficult to have a discussion when someone refuses to believe that the opinion someone states they have is the opinion they actually have.

 


I stand corrected. Please identify one government support program for working families that you support. Perhaps that will give me some idea what kinds of models work for you.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


Those other families are taxpayers too and what they want/need is equally important. That’s not what I asked tho. I asked what evidence you have to demonstrate that your preferred model is better.

 

So are the ones that work odd hours. When my DH made a poverty level wage, I worked the closing shift at a restaurant since he had a day job. Many single moms worked that shift with me and having their children stay longer in school wouldn't help at all. Considering the number of retail jobs that pay low wages it seems that the majoority of really low wage workers wouldn't benefit. Restaurant, retail workers, fast food, any entertainment type jobs all require more workers on evenings and weekends.

I'm not sure what I think of it still but it does seem like it would help a very narrow set of familys. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


Legit question. I think we should ask the people who were latchkey kids when two working parents became the norm (30 years ago) and before this was recognized as a societal vs. purely personal issue. I was perfectly happy at home, with my brother, skinning my nose on an upside down bicycle but that’s not allowed anymore. It was also FREE for my parents, lol. I feel okay resent the ‘institutional’ language tho because I think it betrays a bias against publicly funded facilities regardless of their appearance, function, or purpose.

As much as I support responsible latch-key-kid solutions, I have to admit that there are kids who don't become ready to be home alone until they are much older.  I think there needs to be something else for those kids.  I'm cool with that being something bare-bones though.  Whether it's sitting in a school cafeteria after hours, or on a neighbor's couch.  My folks used to hire neighbor teens to come over when we were too young to be home alone after school.  Whatever works.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frogger said:

 

So are the ones that work odd hours. When my DH made a poverty level wage, I worked the closing shift at a restaurant since he had a day job. Many single moms worked that shift with me and having their children stay longer in school wouldn't help at all. Considering the number of retail jobs that pay low wages it seems that the majoority of really low wage workers wouldn't benefit. Restaurant, retail workers, fast food, any entertainment type jobs all require more workers on evenings and weekends.

I'm not sure what I think of it still but it does seem like it would help a very narrow set of familys. 

People who work outside of standard business hours can hire babysitters (or recruit relatives) who spend the day in school or at a 9-5 job.  Or they can pay to park their kids at the home of another family who has adults home during those hours.  This used to be a pretty common solution before people decided babysitters were probably all child molesters ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frogger said:

 

So are the ones that work odd hours. When my DH made a poverty level wage, I worked the closing shift at a restaurant since he had a day job. Many single moms worked that shift with me and having their children stay longer in school wouldn't help at all. Considering the number of retail jobs that pay low wages it seems that the majoority of really low wage workers wouldn't benefit. Restaurant, retail workers, fast food, any entertainment type jobs all require more workers on evenings and weekends.

I'm not sure what I think of it still but it does seem like it would help a very narrow set of familys. 


This may well be true. I don’t know. Still, as someone else said ‘ahem, PamCt’, “Better is better”. Maybe you tweak this proposal to help families who work 3rd shift by increasing the child care tax credit so you can afford other caregivers.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SKL said:

People who work outside of standard business hours can hire babysitters (or recruit relatives) who spend the day in school or at a 9-5 job.  Or they can pay to park their kids at the home of another family who has adults home during those hours.  This used to be a pretty common solution before people decided babysitters were probably all child molesters ....


Or before people moved away from family ISO work. We have moved so, so many times and I never felt comfortable leaving my kids with in-home care providers. It wasn’t just molestation. I feared unsecured guns and poisons too. They either stayed with family or in a center where I could observe via camera.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SKL said:

People who work outside of standard business hours can hire babysitters (or recruit relatives) who spend the day in school or at a 9-5 job.  Or they can pay to park their kids at the home of another family who has adults home during those hours.  This used to be a pretty common solution before people decided babysitters were probably all child molesters ....

 

Maybe, but they have the same issue with pay as the 9-5 people. My husband and I chose to work opposing shifts because once you have a few kids the cost of childcare can take most of a pay check so if we are only worried about making life easier on working parents financially than the vouchers make more sense. Although, I can see using your voucher at the school. 

 

In the pro side since, it is an optional grant, I can see school districts getting enough money to help maintain the building relieving pressure on local districts partially in one area. Helping the local school budget can be a good thing.

 

The kids will just have to pay for it as adults since everything our gov't does is with debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:


Legit question. I think we should ask the people who were latchkey kids when two working parents became the norm (30 years ago) and before this was recognized as a societal vs. purely personal issue. I was perfectly happy at home, with my brother, skinning my nose on an upside down bicycle but that’s not allowed anymore. It was also FREE for my parents, lol. I feel a bit resentful of the ‘institutional’ language tho because I think it betrays a bias against publicly funded facilities regardless of their appearance, function, or purpose.

IDK why institutional would necessarily mean publicly funded. The after care programs and summer "day camps" I was in were all basically private schools as it were, but it was similar to still being in school (which is the institutional part in my mind, say vs. being in a home or family setting). I consider those an institutional setting, but they weren't government provided daycare. My time was structured for me, I couldn't just hang out alone thinking my own thoughts, I had to do homework when they said, go outside when they said, participate in group activites when they said, eat when they said, eat what they said, do everything with everyone else, the people caring for me were paid to do so, etc. That's what defines institutional to me, not the funding source, because I think my parents paid out the nose for it and were relieved when I hit 4th or 5th grade to stay home alone.

I do admit to having a bias against institutional settings in some form or fashion that I can't put my finger on, but I don't think it's associated with government funding. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm not sure where latch keying isn't allowed anymore. I've lived all over...the last place I lived the minimum age to be home alone was 8. There were plenty of kids in the neighborhood getting off the school bus and going home before their parents. It seems pretty common in general. But was it ever "allowed" younger than 2nd or 3rd grade?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

IDK why institutional would necessarily mean publicly funded. The after care programs and summer "day camps" I was in were all basically private schools as it were, but it was similar to still being in school (which is the institutional part in my mind, say vs. being in a home or family setting). I consider those an institutional setting, but they weren't government provided daycare. My time was structured for me, I couldn't just hang out alone thinking my own thoughts, I had to do homework when they said, go outside when they said, participate in group activites when they said, eat when they said, eat what they said, do everything with everyone else, the people caring for me were paid to do so, etc. That's what defines institutional to me, not the funding source, because I think my parents paid out the nose for it and were relieved when I hit 4th or 5th grade to stay home alone.

I do admit to having a bias against institutional settings in some form or fashion that I can't put my finger on, but I don't think it's associated with government funding. 


I think my general distaste is related to the way many homeschoolers use it as a pejorative way to describe brick and mortar schools. Families/homes are institutions too but I don’t hear people describing them as institutional. Within our family, my kids eat what I serve when I call and say dinner is ready. They go out to ride bikes at my insistence. They get in the car to leave when I say so. They are children within a family institution that imposes rules and circumscribes their behavior and choices. Does that make them institutionalized? All of that existed long before I sent them to any school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, EmseB said:

And I'm not sure where latch keying isn't allowed anymore. I've lived all over...the last place I lived the minimum age to be home alone was 8. There were plenty of kids in the neighborhood getting off the school bus and going home before their parents. It seems pretty common in general. But was it ever "allowed" younger than 2nd or 3rd grade?


It’s not just a matter of ‘allowed’ but about public perception of risk and parental negligence.  Being home alone doesn’t have to be against the law earn you a CPS visit. Failure to provide adequate supervision is enough. https://www.workingmother.com/when-can-you-leave-your-kids-home-alone

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


I think my general distaste is related to the way many homeschoolers use it as a pejorative way to describe brick and mortar schools. Families/homes are institutions too but I don’t hear people describing them as institutional. Within our family, my kids eat what I serve when I call and say dinner is ready. They go out to ride bikes at my insistence. They get in the car to leave when I say so. They are children within a family institution that imposes rules and circumscribes their behavior and choices. Does that make them institutionalized? All of that existed long before I sent them to any school.

Yeah, but there is a difference between a family home setting and an institutional setting that seems really obvious. Care workers are paid, parents are not; 30 kids in a class vs. however many in a family; family bonds and relationships are much different, etc. And there's a HUGE difference in how those settings function in an afterschool,  parents working situation. I could get home from school and relax. In after care, I was still expected to toe the line with the adults and be social with the other kids. I couldn't just have downtime. The difference in how much energy that took for me was amazing.

Of course there are people who homeschool to avoid institutional settings for education, sure. I guess I thought that goes without saying on a homeschooling board. But my point was that it doesn't necessarily mean a disdain solely for government institutions because they are publicly funded. Private schools are institutions. Your post seemed to be saying people using that word were only speaking of government institutions and were biased against them because of their funding source. I think for plenty of people that's not the case. It's more the idea of kids having to be on and engaged with their peers and do what everyone else is doing for more hours of the day instead of being able to, say, curl up in their room and read a book or play imaginatively by themselves or whatever. I couldn't do that in any institutional setting, public school or private school or day care.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of program I want expanded to include K-5th students. It’s funded by the city (not mine). The school buses make a stop there.

“The Teen Center is a FREE drop-in facility for all Cupertino students in the 6th - 12th-grade to enjoy. Participants are welcome to study, hangout, meet for club meetings, or participate in our daily activities. While on-site teens will be supervised by trained rec. staff. 

How to Register & Participate:

Registration is easy! On your first visit, please be sure to have a completed registration form that is signed by both student and parent. You may turn in your completed form to one of our staff and you're all set! Please take a look at our participant manual before your first visit. The next time all you have to do is sign-in and out. 

Teen Center Holiday Break Extended Hours 

Thursday, December 26th through Saturday, January 3rd 12:00pm - 6:00pm

The Teen Center will be open extended hours while students are out of school for the holiday break. It will be closed on December 24th, 25th, 31st, and January 1st as well as every Sunday.

School Year Hours:

Monday-Friday: 3:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.  |  Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)

 Summer Hours (effective June 10 - August 14):

Monday-Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)” https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/parks-recreation/recreation-classes-and-activities/teen/cupertino-teen-center

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 11:01 PM, Momto6inIN said:

I understand that having this as an option would help some kids and families in the short term. But what are the long term ramifications of having more and more kids spending less and less time with their families and more and more time with paid caretakers? Because that's where this is all going. Even if it remains optional, if it's free, more and more people are going to utilize it.

My husband and the board of directors he is on for an outreach program that serves people in 3rd world countries grapple with this issue too. By trying to help people with their short term needs, are we inadvertently setting them up to fail and actually hurting them in the long term?

This is not a “third world country” issue (love that we still use the term. Can we upgrade to second world at least?) In some such countries there may not be as many jobs so one parent is at home, or there are strong familial care bond (neighbors, grandparents). This is an “developed all the way to late capitalism” issue where people can never retire due to a lack of a social network and both parents work at least one full time job each. I don’t think the Us is setting any standards for child care for anyone in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmseB said:

And I'm not sure where latch keying isn't allowed anymore. I've lived all over...the last place I lived the minimum age to be home alone was 8. There were plenty of kids in the neighborhood getting off the school bus and going home before their parents. It seems pretty common in general. But was it ever "allowed" younger than 2nd or 3rd grade?

Yes, it was allowed younger than that. The only kids who had eyes batted at their walking home from my elementary school in the 90s were Kindergarteners. They also were done if the very few kids who had a bus option, though, and everyone else walked. Those walking home usually were not going home to adults. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Yes, it was allowed younger than that. The only kids who had eyes batted at their walking home from my elementary school in the 90s were Kindergarteners. They also were done if the very few kids who had a bus option, though, and everyone else walked. Those walking home usually were not going home to adults. 

So what happens now? The kids I see getting off the bus in the neighborhood I used to live in... how does the school know if they are going home to a parent or not? I see kids walk home to my current neighborhood, but no one is checking if their parents are home. Kinders are still the only ones I know of who have to be picked up by a parent or walked with a sibling over a certain age. I'm not seeing a ton of difference and I also went to elementary in the 90s. Kids walk to school after parents leave for work, come home before they get home from work. Maybe it's regional that latchkeying is not a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


It’s not just a matter of ‘allowed’ but about public perception of risk and parental negligence.  Bring home alone doesn’t have to be against the law earn you a CPS visit. Failure to provide adequate supervision is enough. https://www.workingmother.com/when-can-you-leave-your-kids-home-alone

I feel like I live on a different planet than a lot of lawmakers and child safety advocates. Then again, in the intro to the article a case was cited where a mom left three kids ages 6mo to 4yo. That's demonstrably negligent. A 4yo can't care for an infant. But arresting a mom for leaving a 7yo for 45 minutes is nutso in the other direction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Yeah, but there is a difference between a family home setting and an institutional setting that seems really obvious. Care workers are paid, parents are not; 30 kids in a class vs. however many in a family; family bonds and relationships are much different, etc. And there's a HUGE difference in how those settings function in an afterschool,  parents working situation. I could get home from school and relax. In after care, I was still expected to toe the line with the adults and be social with the other kids. I couldn't just have downtime. The difference in how much energy that took for me was amazing.

Of course there are people who homeschool to avoid institutional settings for education, sure. I guess I thought that goes without saying on a homeschooling board. But my point was that it doesn't necessarily mean a disdain solely for government institutions because they are publicly funded. Private schools are institutions. Your post seemed to be saying people using that word were only speaking of government institutions and were biased against them because of their funding source. I think for plenty of people that's not the case. It's more the idea of kids having to be on and engaged with their peers and do what everyone else is doing for more hours of the day instead of being able to, say, curl up in their room and read a book or play imaginatively by themselves or whatever. I couldn't do that in any institutional setting, public school or private school or day care.

 

Agreed.

I don't like children being in institutional settings for longer hours, but I actively support government funding for public schools, and means tested funding for before and after school care. 

Mainly for pragmatic reasons - we live in this world, not my preferred ideal - and so long as we live in this world, I want all kids to be safe, and have a decent education.

Putting my own kids in care or care + school for 10 hrs a day just was never going to be an option for me though. And I help out a family member (along with others) so it's not the only option for their kids either. 

I work in a school - a decent school - and I've worked in preschools - decent ones - and it's just too long for a lot of kids. 

And the younger they are (and the more they need care), the more a full day plus takes out of them. 

I always felt sorry for the kids who were in early and late to go home.  Lots of the time they were ragged  (and that includes K-6'ers, not just the preschoolers).

There are many trade-offs people make when they put kids into these settings; mostly they either think the trade-offs are worth it, or have little to no choice about it. But the trade-offs definitely exist. Institutional care is often not benign, and that's just the nature of the beast.

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


Legit question. I think we should ask the people who were latchkey kids when two working parents became the norm (30 years ago) and before this was recognized as a societal vs. purely personal issue. I was perfectly happy at home, with my brother, skinning my nose on an upside down bicycle but that’s not allowed anymore. It was also FREE for my parents, lol. I feel a bit resentful of the ‘institutional’ language tho because I think it betrays a bias against publicly funded facilities regardless of their appearance, function, or purpose.

I was happy as a latch key kid too, mostly because I could do whatever the heck I wanted and feel like I was "in charge" which was very empowering. That's not the case with most of these after school programs. 

8 hours ago, EmseB said:

IDK why institutional would necessarily mean publicly funded. The after care programs and summer "day camps" I was in were all basically private schools as it were, but it was similar to still being in school (which is the institutional part in my mind, say vs. being in a home or family setting). I consider those an institutional setting, but they weren't government provided daycare. My time was structured for me, I couldn't just hang out alone thinking my own thoughts, I had to do homework when they said, go outside when they said, participate in group activites when they said, eat when they said, eat what they said, do everything with everyone else, the people caring for me were paid to do so, etc. That's what defines institutional to me, not the funding source, because I think my parents paid out the nose for it and were relieved when I hit 4th or 5th grade to stay home alone.

I do admit to having a bias against institutional settings in some form or fashion that I can't put my finger on, but I don't think it's associated with government funding. 

This. Research shows that kids benefit from unstructured free time to think, create, choose, interact - or not. My experience from when I was working in a school and in my few education courses in college tells me that when the school is in charge of it and large groups of kids are involved, *someone* will organize activities and tell kids what to do and when.

8 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


I think my general distaste is related to the way many homeschoolers use it as a pejorative way to describe brick and mortar schools. Families/homes are institutions too but I don’t hear people describing them as institutional. Within our family, my kids eat what I serve when I call and say dinner is ready. They go out to ride bikes at my insistence. They get in the car to leave when I say so. They are children within a family institution that imposes rules and circumscribes their behavior and choices. Does that make them institutionalized? All of that existed long before I sent them to any school.

I don't think you can equate a home/family setting with an institution. The dynamic and setting and interactions are so very different. It's not that they are government run that makes it institutional, in my mind it's more of a fact of life of the logistics involved any time you have large groups of people to manage in one location that makes it an institution.

Edited by Momto6inIN
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, madteaparty said:

This is not a “third world country” issue (love that we still use the term. Can we upgrade to second world at least?) In some such countries there may not be as many jobs so one parent is at home, or there are strong familial care bond (neighbors, grandparents). This is an “developed all the way to late capitalism” issue where people can never retire due to a lack of a social network and both parents work at least one full time job each. I don’t think the Us is setting any standards for child care for anyone in the world. 

Forgive my awkward phrasing. I wasn't trying to say that other countries should model their child care practices after ours. My point was simply that sometimes when we sincerely desire to help people with their needs we inadvertently end up hurting them in the long run because we haven't considered the long term consequences of our "help". I was trying to give another example of when that can be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

This. Research shows that kids benefit from unstructured free time to think, create, choose, interact - or not. My experience from when I was working in a school and in my few education courses in college tells me that when the school is in charge of it and large groups of kids are involved, *someone* will organize activities and tell kids what to do and when.

 

I don't agree this is necessarily true.  It depends on the philosophy of the organization and the people working there.  In my kids' school, there are options, but nobody is told what to do unless there is a specific reason.  For example, when my kids were there for multiple hours, I told the supervisor that my kids needed to spend at least a half hour on homework, and she would remind them of that.  But otherwise they are merely supervised from afar.  When the kids are allowed outdoors, or in the gym, they are also allowed to stay in.  They are allowed to make noise and decide who they will hang with if anyone.

The "proposal" discussed seems to require a lot more structure though.  I don't recall the language, but it sounded like they have to give the kids some kind of enrichment or whatever - like you would expect from a paid activity such as lessons or tutoring.  That would be problematic as a "requirement."  Offering optional clubs etc would be fine, but forcing them would be going too far.  The other issue with more structure/enrichment is the funding - the government strings - the requirement to hire trained, possibly degreed specialists - red tape involved if you want to volunteer (like I used to volunteer to read with kids).  Also, what if a teacher did want to pitch in?  Some of our teachers provide after- and before-school tutoring - would that be nixed?  Would the existing school sports programs and clubs be subjected to this new bureaucratic arrangement?

I'd just rather give each community the opportunity to structure this for themselves.  Maybe those communities that are lacking could somehow learn from those who have it more figured out.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not exactly comfortable with this proposal, but I would be okay with a separate and distinct government provided after school program in a nearby but separate location from the school. I know from a physical plant standpoint, it would be more expensive, but I think it would be healthier for the kids to leave school behind for the afternoon. It could be set up more appropriately for play, and teachers could have an option to supplement income by taking part time tutoring/homework help jobs there. More expensive might mean that there needs to be some sliding scale payment on the part of parents. 

Maybe this already exists. I have no idea. The YMCA has made this model work pretty well, so there’s no saying local governments can’t do it equally well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

This is the kind of program I want expanded to include K-5th students. It’s funded by the city (not mine). The school buses make a stop there.

“The Teen Center is a FREE drop-in facility for all Cupertino students in the 6th - 12th-grade to enjoy. Participants are welcome to study, hangout, meet for club meetings, or participate in our daily activities. While on-site teens will be supervised by trained rec. staff. 

How to Register & Participate:

Registration is easy! On your first visit, please be sure to have a completed registration form that is signed by both student and parent. You may turn in your completed form to one of our staff and you're all set! Please take a look at our participant manual before your first visit. The next time all you have to do is sign-in and out. 

Teen Center Holiday Break Extended Hours 

Thursday, December 26th through Saturday, January 3rd 12:00pm - 6:00pm

The Teen Center will be open extended hours while students are out of school for the holiday break. It will be closed on December 24th, 25th, 31st, and January 1st as well as every Sunday.

School Year Hours:

Monday-Friday: 3:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.  |  Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)

 Summer Hours (effective June 10 - August 14):

Monday-Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)” https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/parks-recreation/recreation-classes-and-activities/teen/cupertino-teen-center

 

Thanks! This does exist, at least for teens. 

I might be too simple-minded for these discussions. There’s probably 5,000 reasons why my ideas won’t work. I’m of the opinion  that schools should do 10 weeks on, 3 weeks off quarters year round, breaks being used for inservice, parent/teacher, teacher workdays. Districts not coordinating breaks to occur simultaneously, otherwise too much concentrated pressure on childcare and tourism during the off-weeks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frogger said:

 

So are the ones that work odd hours. When my DH made a poverty level wage, I worked the closing shift at a restaurant since he had a day job. Many single moms worked that shift with me and having their children stay longer in school wouldn't help at all. Considering the number of retail jobs that pay low wages it seems that the majoority of really low wage workers wouldn't benefit. Restaurant, retail workers, fast food, any entertainment type jobs all require more workers on evenings and weekends.

I'm not sure what I think of it still but it does seem like it would help a very narrow set of familys. 

This is such a great point. This particular proposal seems to only benefit the 9 to 5-ers and would help many middle class parents (certainly a very large and powerful voting block) but not benefit many poorer parents who are not working 9 to 5.

There are many such programs in my state, such as our lottery, which funds state college students. So our poor people (who are often the ones buying the lottery tickets) are funding the college education for our middle class. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...