My verion of Beer and Popcorn.
From Jenkew’s blog:
Tanya, I disagree with a few of your points [on daycare being the best way to raise toddlers]. I think a blank check to parents is the way to go, since the state gets ages 5 through 18 to raise the child in school, and ages 0 through 5 should primarly be a parent(s) of the child. The structure of school doesn’t suit a little kid very well, the important thing is that a child respect an adult when they are told to do something. Grandma can teach this to a kid as well as a certified stranger, as structure has little to do with it. Sure kids need to spend some time in activity groups with other kids when they are of a pre-school age to get their feet wet, but it’s a very modern [and I think largely incorrect] notion that kids should be shipped away from their home every workday to do whatever in daycares. I think unintended consequences of planning on putting “our” [in the societial sense] children into daycare through their preschool years has a lot to do with so many parents being out of touch with their children, not realizing when they start having unsafe sex, and doing drugs, later on in school.
I feel the best family planning is where the parents decide who the wage earner will be, and who will stay home with the kid(s). Our society is causing a lot of children strife by expecting families with two parents to have two incomes, and it’s creating a gap in the middle class - those who have two wage earners, and those who don’t. Parents who sacrifice the second wage aren’t rewarded by society enough for their time spent raising their own children.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Anonymous | 24-Dec-05 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
After searching the web, I found that Saskboy isn’t the only one who thinks daycare isn’t the best way to raise toddlers…
Saskboy | 24-Dec-05 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
Hi Anonymous,
Please sign in or sign your post when you write next time so people can distinguish your comments from other people who don’t sign in to comment?
I don’t even think it requires the list of professionals on that site to determine that a Day Care isn’t the ideal place for a child to be raised. The problems with raising children today in a city is twofold. First the communities are not as close, people don’t have as many neighbours that they know, from which they can draw child raising advice and occasional baby-sitting support from. And second, this distance in the neighbourhood leads parents to be reluctant to let their children play with neighbourhood kids within the neighbourhood area - if there even is a suitable park or place space available. To combat this isolation, daycares are seen to have a positive effect in several areas, since they “socialize” the children, they babysit, and provide a safe place to play with a trusted adult always watching. The parents are also [both] freed to earn incomes that top single-wage earning families, and thus get the better homes, and possessions in our competitive market. Society in urban areas have essentially hired nannies that live out of the home, and take their kids to the communal nannies, instead of the nannies visiting the children in the kid’s homes.
We’ve taken the responsibility away from the community in raising children, and put it into professional daycares where the bottom line is going to be one of their top considerations. Not enough parents are planning to raise their own children, they’re planning on having the state do most of the raising, while only providing a bed and paycheck for the children to live off of.
Judy_Satin | 25-Dec-05 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Whoever made Anonymous’ anti-daycare website had guts to take on the childcare industry.
Also, I couldn’t believe how huge that http://www.daycaresdontcare.org website is…
Amanda | 28-Dec-05 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
I completely agree with Mr. Saskboy.
I tried the two-wage-earner-kids-in-daycare thing for a while. Actually, quite a while. My son was five weeks old when I went back to work full time, where I remained until he was nearly a year old. Having spent one year apart from him and one year as a full-time mom, I can safely say that absolutely everyone in our situation is better off with me at home. When our second child is born (in a matter of days) I am proud to say I will be able to give him the head start that many other children his age will not have: a mother who is willing and able to stay at home and help his little mind to grow into a fully functional little person.
You only get your children for five years, then you hand them off to teachers, whom you are lucky to know by even their last names, and trust that they will handle the task of raising your youngster properly. Make the most of the five years where you actually have some input!
Chad Moats | 31-Dec-05 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Some families can not afford to for go the second income. The cost of living is so high that it is becoming a necessity. These type of families are the majority.
Also, stay at home parents already get tax deductions and higher CTB cheques. It is the two income families that the daycare program is aimed. These are the people that need the assistance.
I find it funny that the same individuals,and groups, that are against regulated daycare are also the ones that support workfare,et al.
Saskboy | 31-Dec-05 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Chad,
The problem is that people who are on welfare should not be having children until they find a stable income. Since I’d guess that’s rarely the case, and more likely someone goes onto welfare after they’ve had a child or several, we can’t just put a single mother in that situation to work, since it leaves the child[ren] without a parent to care for them. Someone can be against the government supporting daycare, while at the same time supporting regulated day care centers, since the government should be making sure that people are not profiting from child care as if kids are just another product to make oodles of money from. One can also simultaneously support training and finding work for people who are on welfare for extended times, since welfare shouldn’t be a person or family’s primary income for life, it’s a temporary fix in desperate or transitional times.
If a person or family finds the cost of living too high in the area they are living in, then they can choose to move to a place they can afford. If they can’t find work in a less expensive place, they’ll have to either learn a new trade, or make their own employment. The only situation I have a problem with where both parents work, is where they’ve planned that all along, and have kids anyway. If there are willing grandparents or close relatives willing to help raise the children then it’s not such a big deal, but to sluff the child-rearing onto society from 8-6 every day isn’t fair to the children or society.
Mommy2Cole | 24-Nov-07 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
I’m somewhat confused as to why everyone here is saying you have to give your children to their teachers to raise at age 5. I did my time in the trenches of America’s classrooms - from everyone there, I’d like to say - you raise them, let us just teach academics. I don’t want to have to buy them clothes, teach them morals, or make sure they have enough to eat at school because parents may or may not do so once they’re home.
That said, I’m homeschooling.
Saskboy | 24-Nov-07 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
However, teachers have to look out for kids that don’t have parents that have taught the basics. In a perfect world teachers would only have to teach academics, but kids are people who have more needs than just academics, and teachers are the responsible adults while the child is away from home for many hours nearly every day.
Daycaregoer | 23-Jul-08 at 7:11 am | Permalink
Sorry Saskboy, I totally disagree with you. Daycare is a social environment that to many kids are lacking with stay at home Mom’s/Dad’s. I think they should go at least 3 days a week or part time to learn how to interact with other kids. I’ve seen kids at daycare that are dropped off by a prior stay at home Mom, and they have no idea how to act around other kids. Talk about separation social problems. They learn so much more at daycare than you as a parent have the ability to teach them. Yes, they may pick up a bad habit, but they also learn good habits from other kids. How do you plan on teaching your kid to share when there is just one kid at home? Teach them to share with you? Your the parent, that is respect for the parent that they will learn, not a share with others tool. The problem with society from what I see is a lack of respect of kids towards adults.
My son loves daycare, he is excited to be there, and he is thriving there. Learning something new everyday. He doesn’t have separation problems when he is with others and doesn’t stand by Mom or Dad when around others b/c of always being with one of us.
I was home with my Mom and didn’t go to daycare. I didn’t know how to play with others and remaind shy and reserved my whole life. I had one or two friends, but when I went to school, I didn’t know how to act around a bunch of kids. My brother went to a in home daycare with other kids and he is a social person and has always been.
As much as I enjoyed having Mom at home with me, I wish she could have worked more and we could have taken more vacations as a kid. But because of that, I didn’t get to see the beach till I was 14. Then, when it was time for Mom to work, she had no college or skills and is Single now, working for 30K a year at the age of 53. So my parents sacrificed for us, now they have to work a crap job the rest of their lives because all their sacrificy went to us. And don’t tell me they should have planned better because back before you were even born, they had kids at normal ages of 21 and 22, unlike today where they have kids at 30 and 31 or not at all because they are to self absorbed that they don’t want to be bothered with a child. Different matter but I had to say it.
Thanks.
Saskboy | 24-Jul-08 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
Daycaregoer, I don’t disagree that kids should be in an environment with other kids before kindergarten. This is something that can be achieved through library programs, as well as trips to appointments, and parents visiting with other parents with kids of a similar age. They don’t *need* 3 days a week of structured social time with other children, while parents are no where nearby. For some children a bit more time with other kids might be ideal, and for other kids it may be less.
I haven’t taught a kid empathy and sharing, so I can’t say for certain if my experience will be the same as yours that a parent can’t teach inter-child sharing and empathy without other kids present. I do know that there are, and should be, opportunities for children to interact for free. And parents should not be expected to earn two incomes to keep up with the Jones’, if they have young children.
==
“they had kids at normal ages of 21 and 22, unlike today where they have kids at 30 and 31 or not at all because they are to self absorbed that they don’t want to be bothered with a child.”
That’s not only a different matter, I think there are today valid and understandable reasons besides “selfishness” for not having children at 21. It is more difficult to complete post-secondary education and personally raise children if you have a kid before the age of 23. There are also millions more people in Canada than there were thirty years ago, and so property prices are well beyond what a single income family can earn in this country.