Best return on investment: nanny, private elementary/middle/high school, or private college

[Anonymous]

Our plan now -

Nanny (with our schedules it is the easiest option - not so much because we think it will give them a leg up in their future career)
Public school - elementary,middle school, high school - hopefully Fairfax county
College - the best they can get into
Help with grad school if we can (we are trying to save for this as well)

Also, we are hoping that one of us or both of us can cut back on hours as the kids get older so one of us is home when they are home form school, to help teach good study habits etc.

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of fear here about middle and high schools. But I don't see the issue as black-and-white. For one, I don't think that private school necessarily innoculates your kids against drugs and pregnancy, because my own private school was known as the drug capital of our small city. The answer also depends what your public school choices are. Or, if your public choices are bad, whether you are willing to move. There are some fabulous public HS in VA and MD, and not all are by application (TJ and Blair). Check out the public IB programs in VA and Chevy Chase.

Heck, if you move far out enough, to Howard County, say, you can have great public schools and be a SAHM too.

But I agree with the poster who said that it's impossible to know right now what your kid will need. Will your kid want advanced science, which implies TJ then private MIT for college? Or a well-rounded education that implies maybe a private school, or a public IB program, and then a private college? It's impossible to know. Sorry, there are no easy answers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our plan: private ps-8 to establish good study habits, love of learning. If it works and kid is a good student, good public HS. If not, private HS as well.

Good plan - that's what we did and ended up with one in a great public and one in private HS. And I think the private k-8 was important for the reasons you say, althgouh the kids who came through our public school system also seem to have developed the same skills/passion.

[Anonymous]

I was raised by a SAHM, went to a private middle school, public high school, then private university. DH was SAHM, then all public schooling.

This is our plan for our LO: Nanny, top public elementary through middle school, private high school, public university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

The parent should be home when their child gets home from school. I guess you could over-schedule the child and have them do sports, etc. every single afternoon. But then you are ceding the parenting to others - the neighbor who drives them to their next activity, the school after care program coordinator, etc. And since you are barely there in your child's life, why do you think that he or she will confide in you when you are around? My sister, the SAHM, has twice been the first to learn of her dd's friends' sexual activity - before their own parents. Why? Because she is the one who is there for them to confide in.

By the time kids get to high school sports are every single afternoon. If they are going to do a school based team sport that is the drill. I don't consider that ceding parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

Disagree. I think the most crucial time for one parent to be at home is when your child is in middle school. Their peers have become far more influential then; their hormones are going crazy; and those are the years that they can get into really bad stuff. Being present is essential then.

I don't understand this point. If the teen is in middle school and has afterschool activities (sports, etc), then why is it important for a parent to be home? That's a bit extreme. You just need at least one parent to get home at a resonable time to have dinner, help with homework, etc. Also, I doubt that one parent can just SAH for those few years.

The parent should be home when their child gets home from school. I guess you could over-schedule the child and have them do sports, etc. every single afternoon. But then you are ceding the parenting to others - the neighbor who drives them to their next activity, the school after care program coordinator, etc. And since you are barely there in your child's life, why do you think that he or she will confide in you when you are around? My sister, the SAHM, has twice been the first to learn of her dd's friends' sexual activity - before their own parents. Why? Because she is the one who is there for them to confide in.

As for your last statement, why should it be any harder for one parent to SAH those few years than it is for one to SAH for the first few years?

You can work without overscheduling your child. This is really reaching. If you don't want or need a career that's fine but many of us aren't ready to retire in our late 30s once our kids reach school age. You can't really pretend to even think you will go back after several years in your 50s. It's fine if people don't want to and don't need to work. But saying it is not an option if you want to be present for your child is BS. Quit stating your opinion as if it's an definitive fact. We are all in the real world and we all know parents who work with kids in school and parent who don't - it's a mixed bag how their kids are navigating through those tough teen years and not totally dependent on working vs. SAH.

If you read carefully, the argument is not that you can't work while your child is in middle school - just that a parent should be home when the child gets home from school. How is that inconsistent with having a career? The only argument was that it is more important to be there for them in adolescence than toddlerhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

Disagree. I think the most crucial time for one parent to be at home is when your child is in middle school. Their peers have become far more influential then; their hormones are going crazy; and those are the years that they can get into really bad stuff. Being present is essential then.

I don't understand this point. If the teen is in middle school and has afterschool activities (sports, etc), then why is it important for a parent to be home? That's a bit extreme. You just need at least one parent to get home at a resonable time to have dinner, help with homework, etc. Also, I doubt that one parent can just SAH for those few years.

The parent should be home when their child gets home from school. I guess you could over-schedule the child and have them do sports, etc. every single afternoon. But then you are ceding the parenting to others - the neighbor who drives them to their next activity, the school after care program coordinator, etc. And since you are barely there in your child's life, why do you think that he or she will confide in you when you are around? My sister, the SAHM, has twice been the first to learn of her dd's friends' sexual activity - before their own parents. Why? Because she is the one who is there for them to confide in.

As for your last statement, why should it be any harder for one parent to SAH those few years than it is for one to SAH for the first few years?

You can work without overscheduling your child. This is really reaching. If you don't want or need a career that's fine but many of us aren't ready to retire in our late 30s once our kids reach school age. You can't really pretend to even think you will go back after several years in your 50s. It's fine if people don't want to and don't need to work. But saying it is not an option if you want to be present for your child is BS. Quit stating your opinion as if it's an definitive fact. We are all in the real world and we all know parents who work with kids in school and parent who don't - it's a mixed bag how their kids are navigating through those tough teen years and not totally dependent on working vs. SAH.

If you read carefully, the argument is not that you can't work while your child is in middle school - just that a parent should be home when the child gets home from school. How is that inconsistent with having a career? The only argument was that it is more important to be there for them in adolescence than toddlerhood.

How many careers let you work only until 3 pm each day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

Disagree. I think the most crucial time for one parent to be at home is when your child is in middle school. Their peers have become far more influential then; their hormones are going crazy; and those are the years that they can get into really bad stuff. Being present is essential then.

I totally agree with you. If you look at a bunch of 4-5 year olds, there is no way you would know which of them was in daycare, had a SAHM or had a nanny. The important thing is that they be given quality childcare, but you can find that in any of those settings (and in any of those settings, you can also find that the care isn't so great).

But I think moms in general are fooling themselves if they think it is more important to be home during the baby years. Anybody who has an older kid will tell you that this just isn't the case.

As a parent of teens, I completely agree with you. I worked full-time when they were small, and work part-time now in order to be available to them in the afternoons.

Statistics re: teens getting into trouble bear this out:

http://blog.teenhelp.com/2009/11/teen-after-school-hours.html

After school hours for teens are a crucial time. This time is either used for growth and development or it can be used for high risk behaviors like teen drug use. It is important for parents and educators to make sure that teens have what they need during these hours of the day.

The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center states that these hours are when very high risk behavior including criminal activity, drug use and alcohol use take place for teens. Most experts will agree that after school programs keep kids safe and boost the teens academic progress.

After-school programs help, but are not a panacea and in any case are not full-time/every day events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our plan: private ps-8 to establish good study habits, love of learning. If it works and kid is a good student, good public HS. If not, private HS as well.

Just curious. How does a private school help a child establish good study habits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

Disagree. I think the most crucial time for one parent to be at home is when your child is in middle school. Their peers have become far more influential then; their hormones are going crazy; and those are the years that they can get into really bad stuff. Being present is essential then.

I don't understand this point. If the teen is in middle school and has afterschool activities (sports, etc), then why is it important for a parent to be home? That's a bit extreme. You just need at least one parent to get home at a resonable time to have dinner, help with homework, etc. Also, I doubt that one parent can just SAH for those few years.

The parent should be home when their child gets home from school. I guess you could over-schedule the child and have them do sports, etc. every single afternoon. But then you are ceding the parenting to others - the neighbor who drives them to their next activity, the school after care program coordinator, etc. And since you are barely there in your child's life, why do you think that he or she will confide in you when you are around? My sister, the SAHM, has twice been the first to learn of her dd's friends' sexual activity - before their own parents. Why? Because she is the one who is there for them to confide in.

As for your last statement, why should it be any harder for one parent to SAH those few years than it is for one to SAH for the first few years?

You can work without overscheduling your child. This is really reaching. If you don't want or need a career that's fine but many of us aren't ready to retire in our late 30s once our kids reach school age. You can't really pretend to even think you will go back after several years in your 50s. It's fine if people don't want to and don't need to work. But saying it is not an option if you want to be present for your child is BS. Quit stating your opinion as if it's an definitive fact. We are all in the real world and we all know parents who work with kids in school and parent who don't - it's a mixed bag how their kids are navigating through those tough teen years and not totally dependent on working vs. SAH.

If you read carefully, the argument is not that you can't work while your child is in middle school - just that a parent should be home when the child gets home from school. How is that inconsistent with having a career? The only argument was that it is more important to be there for them in adolescence than toddlerhood.

There is no argument, just your opinion which is, an opinion, and one that I couldn't disagree more with. As the parent of two high achieving, college bound teens, my kids are involved in sports, voluneering, and of course studying. We are their parents and we are there for them, but there is plenty of time for both my husband and I to pursue careers, get a healthy, homemade meal on the table that we all share every night, and be involved in their school, education, and other aspects of their life. I supposse you are planning on having your kids live with you in college (if they are college bound)?

And sorry, it's hard to breast feed your kids if they are in daycare. I have NOTHING against parents working when their kids are young and no issue with high quality care in the infant and toddler years, but there are some things that a provider can't do that a mom can. Not to mention, economically it makes more sense to not pay for infant daycare if you have the choice and desire to stay home. Stats wise, there are a lot more moms home in the early years than in the teen or elem. school years, no doubt because if my children will be out of the home between 30-40 hours anyway, I might as we well be earning a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your best money spent will be on one parent staying home FT until school starts.

Disagree. I think the most crucial time for one parent to be at home is when your child is in middle school. Their peers have become far more influential then; their hormones are going crazy; and those are the years that they can get into really bad stuff. Being present is essential then.

I don't understand this point. If the teen is in middle school and has afterschool activities (sports, etc), then why is it important for a parent to be home? That's a bit extreme. You just need at least one parent to get home at a resonable time to have dinner, help with homework, etc. Also, I doubt that one parent can just SAH for those few years.

The parent should be home when their child gets home from school. I guess you could over-schedule the child and have them do sports, etc. every single afternoon. But then you are ceding the parenting to others - the neighbor who drives them to their next activity, the school after care program coordinator, etc. And since you are barely there in your child's life, why do you think that he or she will confide in you when you are around? My sister, the SAHM, has twice been the first to learn of her dd's friends' sexual activity - before their own parents. Why? Because she is the one who is there for them to confide in.

As for your last statement, why should it be any harder for one parent to SAH those few years than it is for one to SAH for the first few years?

You can work without overscheduling your child. This is really reaching. If you don't want or need a career that's fine but many of us aren't ready to retire in our late 30s once our kids reach school age. You can't really pretend to even think you will go back after several years in your 50s. It's fine if people don't want to and don't need to work. But saying it is not an option if you want to be present for your child is BS. Quit stating your opinion as if it's an definitive fact. We are all in the real world and we all know parents who work with kids in school and parent who don't - it's a mixed bag how their kids are navigating through those tough teen years and not totally dependent on working vs. SAH.

If you read carefully, the argument is not that you can't work while your child is in middle school - just that a parent should be home when the child gets home from school. How is that inconsistent with having a career? The only argument was that it is more important to be there for them in adolescence than toddlerhood.

How many careers let you work only until 3 pm each day?

Teleworking, flexible hours - there are many options.

[Anonymous]

We have only 1 kid -- so we did the whole 9 yards -

1. Au Pair
2. Private School all the way through
3. Ivy

If we had more than 1 kid we couldn't have afforded all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our plan: private ps-8 to establish good study habits, love of learning. If it works and kid is a good student, good public HS. If not, private HS as well.

Just curious. How does a private school help a child establish good study habits?

This is just my personal experience but I was in good (but not the best) private schools from k-9. In 10th grade, we moved to a suburb of Dallas with very good public schools, so my parents sent us to public schools. 10th grade in public was easier than 9th grade in private. The private was definitely as demanding or more demanding than honors classes in the public school. Everyone at the private did 90%+ of their homework. It really evened out in 11th-12th when I was in some AP classes at the public high school. And the private elementary and public high school combo prepared me very well for the large public university I attended. I did think the values at my private middle school were disgusting in terms of priviledge and materialism, but I think some of that is just that age of kids. At the private, there was definitely an assumption that everyone would go to a competitive college which I think is positive.

So far for our kids:
1) High quality daycare with a parent working part-time
2) Oldest in good DCPS elementary and younger kids to follow
3) Hope we have enough money for private high school to be an option although hoping not to need private
4) Hope we can support the kids to go to the best college they can attend private or public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no argument, just your opinion which is, an opinion, and one that I couldn't disagree more with. As the parent of two high achieving, college bound teens, my kids are involved in sports, voluneering, and of course studying. We are their parents and we are there for them, but there is plenty of time for both my husband and I to pursue careers, get a healthy, homemade meal on the table that we all share every night, and be involved in their school, education, and other aspects of their life. I supposse you are planning on having your kids live with you in college (if they are college bound)?

And sorry, it's hard to breast feed your kids if they are in daycare. I have NOTHING against parents working when their kids are young and no issue with high quality care in the infant and toddler years, but there are some things that a provider can't do that a mom can. Not to mention, economically it makes more sense to not pay for infant daycare if you have the choice and desire to stay home. Stats wise, there are a lot more moms home in the early years than in the teen or elem. school years, no doubt because if my children will be out of the home between 30-40 hours anyway, I might as we well be earning a living.

You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I have said. I never said that there wasn't time for both parents to have fulfilling careers. I merely think that teenagers need their own parents - not surrogates - more than toddlers do. Any loving caregiver can take excellent care of a preschooler - whether the child is breastfed or not.

I am glad that your kids are doing well. My mom worked, and I never got into drugs or premarital sex (helped no doubt my my strict Catholic upbringing). But there are many factors that go into whether teens get into trouble. And statistically, risky behaviors are far more likely among teenagers who are unsupervised. I responded initially to the person who said that the most crucial time for parental care-taking is when your child is 1-3. I - and, in fact, several other posters on this thread - disagree with that reasoning, and gave many reasons why. Your anecdotal refutation of our position is interesting, but hardly incontrovertible authority. You can disagree as much as you like, but your defensiveness about differing opinions is rather bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no argument, just your opinion which is, an opinion, and one that I couldn't disagree more with. As the parent of two high achieving, college bound teens, my kids are involved in sports, voluneering, and of course studying. We are their parents and we are there for them, but there is plenty of time for both my husband and I to pursue careers, get a healthy, homemade meal on the table that we all share every night, and be involved in their school, education, and other aspects of their life. I supposse you are planning on having your kids live with you in college (if they are college bound)?

And sorry, it's hard to breast feed your kids if they are in daycare. I have NOTHING against parents working when their kids are young and no issue with high quality care in the infant and toddler years, but there are some things that a provider can't do that a mom can. Not to mention, economically it makes more sense to not pay for infant daycare if you have the choice and desire to stay home. Stats wise, there are a lot more moms home in the early years than in the teen or elem. school years, no doubt because if my children will be out of the home between 30-40 hours anyway, I might as we well be earning a living.

You have got to be kidding me. Have you ever heard of pumping?? What exactly are those things that a provider can't do that a mom can? Other than breastfeeding though I assure you as a working mom of an EXCLUSIVELY breastfed 7 month old that our child care provider is perfectly capable of giving my daughter a bottle of breastmilk.

And all b/c there are more moms home during the early years doesn't mean that those are the crucial years to be home. I work full-time and don't really have a dog in this fight, but I have always known that it is FAR better for me to work FT now (while my kids are younger), build up my reputation and seniority and then go part time later on (when my kids are in middle school and need me more).