Friday, December 23, 2005

My thoughts on Daycare

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.

Haloscan |


At 7:22 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

After searching the web, I found that Saskboy isn't the only one who thinks daycare isn't the best way to raise toddlers...

At 8:08 p.m., Blogger Saskboy said...

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.

At 2:05 p.m., Blogger Judy_Satin said...

Whoever made Anonymous' anti-daycare website had guts to take on the childcare industry.

Also, I couldn't believe how huge that website is...

At 6:12 p.m., Anonymous Amanda said...

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!

At 11:43 a.m., Blogger Chad Moats said...

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.

At 1:02 p.m., Blogger Saskboy said...

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.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home