Hellobee Boards

I'm liable to agree that it's a slippery slope when the expectation is that child care centers are open longer so that we can overwork the parents. It's a terrible work life balance for kids and parents.

I think most people would agree that kids are better off when they spend time with their parents, but if you have to work, then child care is important. Therefore you either have childcare for long hours or you raise parent's salaries.

I feel like a bigger issue that is only touched at is that kids are being "taught" too early. If that makes sense, they are starting much earlier in the educational system. They are expected to conform etc.

Teaching gymnastics you could see a difference in the child care kids and the SAH kids. The child care kids were more prepared for independent classes. (This is of course a vast generalization and it was dependent on each kid etc).

@mrbee: I wasn't meaning to say that the opportunity for some childcare doesn't have merit. My LO will be going to daycare and I don't feel she will be less bonded. But, I got the feeling that the article was talking about parents who have their kids in daycare for 60 hours a week. Surely a child being able to spend a few hours with their parents on a daily basis is preferable to daycare from the time they get up until the time they go to bed?

Although this article speaks more to the issue of over-worked people, I thought it was pretty interesting and encouraging. I will be happy to eat my words regarding it not being realistic that companies will embrace a better work-life balance.

http://m.policymic.com/articles/87465/why-we-all-shared-the-story-about-france-s-alleged-ban-on-after-work-e-mails

I kept waiting for her to cite studies of the mental abilities or emotional states of kids who are in daycare full time vs. those who aren't. Unless I missed it this was not part of her findings, it was more about her own opinion.

She's sort of starting a few good points but not fleshing them out. Yes, I agree those of us who want to be affluent are overworked and therefore spend less time with our kids so it's a tradeoff. there is nothing new about this. The alternative is for one parent to stay home and for the family to have a lot less $, personally it would mean cutting our income in half. Unless of course companies offer a better work/life balance, but clearly that isn't happening any time soon especially in the US where the government refuses to give us any more than 12 weeks job protection to stay home wiht our newborns. Forget makign it affordable in the first place.

I agree with the teacher who posted about the teacher perspective of not wanting to work longer hours. At least in my experience, the daycare teachers (who are paid to stay there until 6) get SUPER annoyed when I show up closer to 6pm, since I usually show up by 5:15. Of course they would rather work less to get paid the same amount (just like any of us) but in their case they can turn around and make the parents look like the bad guys for 'never being around'. Sometimes I feel like saying to them "Just so you know, no one forced you to work in this daycare that is open until 6pm" lol.

I would love to see a "study" that compares truly engaged daycares vs. SAHP where an outing to Target is the highest level of social interaction a child receives all day. Oh wait, I almost forget: all time spent with parents is positive and full of brain-developing and experience-expanding opportunities while WOHP are crap parents who don't care enough not to just dump their kids off with others.

What a great article, if you want to be made to feel bad for putting food on your family's table

@Kemma: everything you to with an infant is educational - every experience builds and expands their horizon. Playing with blocks is educational, painting and mixing colors and finding out that if you mix two colors together you get a new color is education. I don't really understand the need for "education" to be a thing isolated from everything else, because it isn't. When you don't know anything yet and are introduced to new things and get to explore them - that's education.

As for this comment: "I believe there was a study done in NZ that determined that GOOD daycare did not have a detrimental effect on children." I'm not sure what that was suppose to add, except to reinforce my comment about making working parents feel like crap. Is "not detrimental" suppose to be the best positive we can hope for for our children in daycare?

We started our LO in daycare in January at 17 months and we have noticed that her development has really taken off. Being around other kids has really helped her. I kind of feel bad that I kept her at home so long. I don't feel any less bonded to her now that she is in daycare and I feel that it has been so beneficial to her.

I think this debate is totally ahistorical. In the past, rich people (I'm talking Downton level) had governesses that provided total care. Poor people probably either had a millions kids and therefore their attention was split, or had family watch kids while they worked--extended family caregiving. Or the kids watched themselves at a younger age (see 'Babies'). Or heck, the kids worked in a factory or on the farm. The idea that there was ever a time when children spent all this perfect quality time with their parents is a total fiction created by baby boomers. I say this as a SAHM who is, frankly, worried about pushing my kid into a controlled environment too early (not daycare, but I do get concerned with the assumption/pressure surrounding preschool). But I also try to recognize that we don't have a "crisis" on our hands....I feel like parents are more hands-on than ever before, especially dads! A century ago the idea of childhood didn't even exist!

I didn't see a thesis in this article. The teachers' union leader was explaining a motion for debate at an upcoming conference. The motion was:

"the political emphasis on childcare marginalised the contribution of parents and the importance of family life."

I find that to be a worthwhile topic of debate for such an institution, and not an indictment of working parents. The suggestion, as I understand it, is that perhaps instead of throwing taxpayer money into nursery and preschool, the government should focus on helping parents be better parents. I think it is a refreshing counterpoint to the thesis behind ideas like the one the government seems to be promoting, which can only be read harshly: Many parents are unfit to give their children the tools they need, so the sooner we can put their children in professional care, the better.

The article notes that the teachers' union (which may have ulterior motives as suggested above, but could also reasonably be expected to look out for the best interests of the chief consumers of their professional services: children) chose this topic for debate:

"just days after Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, said schools were best placed to teach children aged two or three the basics of literacy and numeracy, giving them a solid foundation for full-time education."

If anyone in this article comes across as denigrating parents, I'd say it's Sir Wilshaw.

@honeybear: +1 for sure. I definitely don't think there is a winner in the daycare vs. at- home fight, but I definitely agree that any discussion about better work/balance is valuable! And I think it is powerful that a teachers union would come out with this, because that is the kind of thing that can bring about change! At least in aggregate over years.

FWIW, I think there is something to this institutionalized thing... Just because aside from necessary childcare, parents are also pressured into starting preschool early, do enrichment classes on the side, etc. And I think that's what they are saying-- all-day preschool is different from daycare, because it is a lot more structured. And that isn't necessarily good for kids who are so young. But that is a different debate from SAH vs WOH.

Personally I went to daycare after kindergarten and it was a lot more free-range. I think that is more sustainable than all-day preschool for young children.

@mrbee: @Grace: I also disagree that staying home with parents is always better, and this comes from a current SAHM! I know some parents who are just not cut out to be at home all day & their kids benefit from being in childcare. Conversely, I know a few people with mental issues etc & I wish they would put their kids in daycare or something so they can get the proper stimulation & affection they need. For whatever reason it's not always true that parents are the best caregivers/teachers for their kids. I'm glad I am SAH right now but I am going back to work part-time soon & I am excited for the new experiences LO will have.

@Mrs. Sketchbook: That is a great point!

(sorry about all the piecemeal replies... on my phone & easier this way)

@daniellemybelle: it wasn't a generalization; it was a reaction to this article, and most others posted (most often by SAHM) that use language like "negative" "institutionalized" to describe all daycare; as though the daycare experience is the same across the board, and always worse than spending time with parents. There is also a range of SAHP, some of which doesn't provide any social activity outside of running errands, and some of which doesn't stack up against a good daycare. That was the point. Though HB is definitely not safe from the mommy wars, this wasn't one.

@daniellemybelle: It might be a new notion, but that doesn't mean it's not desirable. Women having the vote, and child labour laws are also new notions.

@yoursilverlining: I think it is important to point out that the article was specifically talking about preschool, which is a totally different beast from daycare, or after school care. I can understand why teachers would bristle at the idea of having to provided a preschool-like environment from morning to end of day. I mean, if that were appropriate, then why not just start kindergarten at three years old, and have it until six in the evening! We don't even do that with kindergarten now. But that is the proposal that the person in this article was responding to. I don't think it was a message for working parents per se. I mean, this was basically directed at a group of parents demanding before-school care and after-school care on the same level as preschool and the teachers saying, we can't provide that level of intensive care for that long, and frankly it wouldn't be good for them. And considering that our current school system doesn't even provide that amount of organized care, well....I can see what they are saying.

@Grace: I guess what I meant was, we are fighting over details that weren't even a concept just a few generations ago. I mean, as an SAHM, I definitely want to provide work/life balance for my family...otherwise I wouldn't be doing this! But I do agree that if we had better legislation in place, I might have been able to do that without having to make the sacrifice of not working. So yeah, there is a lot of work left, but at the same time we don't need to be so polarized with the SAH vs. WOH that we focus more on in-fighting than on doing things that help everyone (even the childfree!).