Why do your affluent kids "need to be in school?"

[Anonymous]

The whole “kids don’t transmit the virus to adults” is problematic in public schools. There are 18-19 year olds (in other words, adults) in 12th grade this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately it's because parents (myself included) want the best for their kids, even at the expense of public health. School gives kids a sense of normalcy, and the absence of school has been extremely hard on them. I think it's easy for people who don't have kids to underestimate that.

But, my kids attend private school, and for 40K per kid, they were already in large classrooms with 12-15 kids per class. So they are likely to return full time, or close to it, anyway.

The "wealthy" families who insist their kids "must" return to school (but apparently were not wealthy enough to send their kids to private school) should take a hard look at what public schools were offering in the first place. They've long been overcrowded, and the pandemic is just highlighting that problem.

Re: the bold: If families would actually sacrifice for real, for a shorter but intense time, by doing serious isolation -- no grocery runs, no takeout, no distanced visits, no vacations to the beach "in a safe way," no playdates with neighbor kids because "they'll stay apart!" -- then we ALL could be returning to normalcy sooner. But because of "parents who want the best for their kids, even at the expense of public health," people insisted on a fake isolation with socializing, playdates, seeing the relatives, beach trips, restaurants "because we're in Phase Whatever now so it's safe" and "My kids NEED all this!"

And all over, cases are rising. Now it's all about school -- I must send my child to school because it's what's best for MY child and damn public health.

Before you say, "Well, people with kids don't understand all this," I have a kid. And i get that we are not the center of the universe.

No rich person is thinking “I am going to risk poor people’s health by sending my kid in to pubic school.”

By and large most people are thinking “if they are opening two days a week, with a plan, they must know how to do it safely. When it is not safe, they will go to DL for everyone.”

[Anonymous]

My 6 yo (rising 2nd grader) is absolutely miserable. She's brooding and angry and anxious. She misses her peers terribly. She hates being told what to do by a parent or nanny, but is perfectly happy to go along with her peers in a classroom setting. I just can't keep fighting with her. Even vacations haven't helped. She needs some space from her parents/nanny and to be in a stimulating environment with peers. I'm really worried about her mental health if we have to DL for the school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the middle of a growing pandemic, why do your kids "need to be in school" this fall? One of my former classmates just posted this and several people on this forum have done so as well. She is a wealthy attorney, member of a country club etc. She has the means to hire a caregiver to supplement distance learning and plenty of friends that she could set up a social pod with for her kids to socialize. Why do her kids "need to be in school" to the detriment of public health? Plenty of people are saving money now due to not having to commute, not having to pay for activities, not shopping and buying clothes, eating out less etc. Why can't they hire a caregiver to help their kids with distance learning? I understand that this is out of the price range for many, but not sure why so many affluent people in this area are saying their kids "need to be in school."

Assuming this is a serious question posed by an even half-way reasonable person (not sure that is the case), I will attempt to provide OP with an answer that she can comprehend. If you're a parent yourself (doubtful, just by the question), you know that your kids benefit from "being in school" in myriad ways that go far beyond the actual academic program.

School teaches kids to socialize. School teaches kids to function in groups, and around adults that are not their parents. School gives kids their first taste of independence. School challenges kids, allows them to fail and supports them as they pick themselves up again and move on. School provides a wealth of opportunities that are impossible to replicate through home distance learning, such as art, chorus groups, band, sports teams, physical education, assemblies, etc. School teaches kids that they are not in fact the center of the universe, which is often a revelation. School provides access to friends, potential friends and those we have to work harder to like. School is fun, hard, boring and exciting, often all in the same day, which is an important concept for kids to learn to deal with. School requires a level of behavior and self-discipline that is not required if one is sitting on one's own sofa in one's pajamas, eating cheetos while trying to follow a math class. School is a kid's first community. School provides an opportunity to be around other people's germs and get sick, thus building up immunity. School provides an opportunity to get hurt at recess, which teaches kids that yes, they can overcome pain. School provides access to supplemental services that are often essential, such as counseling. School provides a rhythm, a routine, a reason to get up and get dressed every morning. It is truly a child's purpose in life.

So yes, OP, as you wring your hands over the severity of this pandemic which, whose effect on children, BTW, is almost nil - I will side with the Academy of Pedetrics - you know, the experts, who contend that ALL children -- even wealthy little Biff and Bo -- NEED to be in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people prioritize how they choose to spend their money and want vs. need are two different things. They can but they don't want to. Its easier to send them to school.

If its a mental health issue, you need to change what's going on in your home and make a better family dynamic. This is such a great time to spend time as a family.

Lol! You don’t work, do you?

Seriously, we have so much else family time bc childcare, split shift working, and non stop laundry and dishes. Oh and DL at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm affluent. My SN kid needs his teachers who understand how to teach kids with SN, know him well, and whose hands are really tied when it comes to distance learning. He needs to be around other peers, and learn from actual people, not a youtube video of math.

Then, hire a tutor or teach him. That's what we are doing with our SN child and its actually worked better given how little school really provides. Even at school its often videos.

My kid does well in his program and class at school. I agree that some kids will do better at home but mine won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people prioritize how they choose to spend their money and want vs. need are two different things. They can but they don't want to. Its easier to send them to school.

If its a mental health issue, you need to change what's going on in your home and make a better family dynamic. This is such a great time to spend time as a family.

Lol! You don’t work, do you?

Yes, and we've made it work but we've always supplemented at home. Try making your kids a priority.

[Anonymous]

They don't. Their parents need to become more resilient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the middle of a growing pandemic, why do your kids "need to be in school" this fall? One of my former classmates just posted this and several people on this forum have done so as well. She is a wealthy attorney, member of a country club etc. She has the means to hire a caregiver to supplement distance learning and plenty of friends that she could set up a social pod with for her kids to socialize. Why do her kids "need to be in school" to the detriment of public health? Plenty of people are saving money now due to not having to commute, not having to pay for activities, not shopping and buying clothes, eating out less etc. Why can't they hire a caregiver to help their kids with distance learning? I understand that this is out of the price range for many, but not sure why so many affluent people in this area are saying their kids "need to be in school."

Assuming this is a serious question posed by an even half-way reasonable person (not sure that is the case), I will attempt to provide OP with an answer that she can comprehend. If you're a parent yourself (doubtful, just by the question), you know that your kids benefit from "being in school" in myriad ways that go far beyond the actual academic program.

School teaches kids to socialize. School teaches kids to function in groups, and around adults that are not their parents. School gives kids their first taste of independence. School challenges kids, allows them to fail and supports them as they pick themselves up again and move on. School provides a wealth of opportunities that are impossible to replicate through home distance learning, such as art, chorus groups, band, sports teams, physical education, assemblies, etc. School teaches kids that they are not in fact the center of the universe, which is often a revelation. School provides access to friends, potential friends and those we have to work harder to like. School is fun, hard, boring and exciting, often all in the same day, which is an important concept for kids to learn to deal with. School requires a level of behavior and self-discipline that is not required if one is sitting on one's own sofa in one's pajamas, eating cheetos while trying to follow a math class. School is a kid's first community. School provides an opportunity to be around other people's germs and get sick, thus building up immunity. School provides an opportunity to get hurt at recess, which teaches kids that yes, they can overcome pain. School provides access to supplemental services that are often essential, such as counseling. School provides a rhythm, a routine, a reason to get up and get dressed every morning. It is truly a child's purpose in life.

So yes, OP, as you wring your hands over the severity of this pandemic which, whose effect on children, BTW, is almost nil - I will side with the Academy of Pedetrics - you know, the experts, who contend that ALL children -- even wealthy little Biff and Bo -- NEED to be in school.

You have, in fact, sent your kids to school previously right? So they should have experienced all of these things. Is one more year with you, distance learning, a caregiver, and a social pod REALLY going to undo all of the socialization your kids for the past however many years? If your children don’t listen to you, that’s a parenting issue and frankly you shouldn’t be putting that on the school anyway. That’s akin to the parents who send their preschoolers to school in pajamas because they cannot get them dressed but somehow the teacher can. If your kid isn’t listening to your hired caregiver, guess what, they are probably not listening to their teacher either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm affluent. My SN kid needs his teachers who understand how to teach kids with SN, know him well, and whose hands are really tied when it comes to distance learning. He needs to be around other peers, and learn from actual people, not a youtube video of math.

Then, hire a tutor or teach him. That's what we are doing with our SN child and its actually worked better given how little school really provides. Even at school its often videos.

Same. Kid has ABA ongoing at home, teletherapy in a group, and we are moving to outdoor group speech therapy as well. We even did occupational therapy through zoom and it was not half bad.

[Anonymous]

We don't. We supplement heavily even with our kids in school. We have actually been finding it easier to do this now, because there are so many online options offering free or nearly free opportunities. Both of us have post graduate degrees and are more than capable of educating our 6th grader. Our older kids are in college and we are supplementing for them as well. Is it ideal or what we would choose if there were no pandemic? No, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it a relatively recent development for the children of the wealthy to be housed in schools for much of the day? Children used to be educated at home without notably inferior mental health outcomes.

I’ve thought about this before, in the context of 19th century British fiction. The guys in Austen novels make a lot more sense if you think about how poorly socialized people were back then!

[Anonymous]

Life in this country — outside of the summer months — largely revolves around K-12 kids being in school and parents being at work. We now find our country on a horrible situation, including, inter alia, children who face public health issues as a result of having lost in-person instruction. The musings of some outlier rich people shouldn’t factor into the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life in this country — outside of the summer months — largely revolves around K-12 kids being in school and parents being at work. We now find our country on a horrible situation, including, inter alia, children who face public health issues as a result of having lost in-person instruction. The musings of some outlier rich people shouldn’t factor into the debate.

What musings? OP is attacking rich people and their children. It's just ugly classism, aimed at children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life in this country — outside of the summer months — largely revolves around K-12 kids being in school and parents being at work. We now find our country on a horrible situation, including, inter alia, children who face public health issues as a result of having lost in-person instruction. The musings of some outlier rich people shouldn’t factor into the debate.

One of my friends recently described our situation as our entire country going through culture shock. If you think about how much working and K-12 schooling do drive our culture, it makes sense.