Preschool field trip on metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

Yes really very few fatalities - as is so few that in 42 years you can count them on two hands and one foot. Which is about the number of people who die in this region every single week in traffic accidents. But keep worrying about the wrong things.

And not sure why a kid would get hurt? I've been public transit reliant for 26 years and have never seen someone get hurt - I've seen plenty of funky things and occassionally some dirty things but never saw an injury.

And I've never gotten separated from my child or otherwise seen it happen.

But you keep worrying - I guarantee every time you drive, park and walk in to your suburban McDonald's with a kid in tow that it is more dangerous than any trip on public transit, with or without a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the parents and kids? I am really feeling for the heavily pregnant daycare employee who has to deal with this field trip. I had to pee like every 20 minutes my last trimester and my feet were so swollen-the last place I would want to be was in bathroomless metro stations and on a field trip in 90 degree weather trying to keep hold of many small children at once.

Really, the hypothetical pregnant daycare employee means you think the house shouldn't do this? Even assuming such an employee exists in the class that has the field trip, you could easily have that person switch with someone in another class for that day if the field was too taxing.

Sounds like they need all hands on deck to get down to a reasonable 1:2 ratio. I would call in sick for sure if that was me-not worth the stress for whatever crappy pay she is getting.

OMG it is not stressful unless you get stressed about ordinary things.

As I wrote up thread it only took a couple of parents volunteering to get to a 2:1 ratio and usually so many parents came on these trips (because they were fun!) that most kids were 1:1 with an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:some weird vibe here like "Hipster city parents and their adventurous, well-behaved children vs old lame fat suburbanites and their sad unadventurous children".

personally for toddlers and 3 year olds, this kind of trip is not worth the stress. For 4-5 year olds, I could see a carefully planned outing with a lot of parent volunteers as worthwhile. As pp mentioned, the PITA factor alone of dealing with a class of recently potty trained kids with no available bathroom would make it a non started for me.

Did the implication about lame suburbanites hit close to home for you?

As a lame suburbanite you won't get this but taking public transit is not stressful or extraordinary or hard or dangerous. And if you used Metro you'd also know every single station has a bathroom.

I think we need a parallel thread about the horrors (and dangers) of having to drive from an Urban area to the suburbs for a lame birthday party at Bounce You. Dodging SUV's (and the mom's with their noses in their phones) in those parking lots is easily more stressful than any trip on public transit I've ever taken with one of my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

Yes really very few fatalities - as is so few that in 42 years you can count them on two hands and one foot. Which is about the number of people who die in this region every single week in traffic accidents. But keep worrying about the wrong things.

And not sure why a kid would get hurt? I've been public transit reliant for 26 years and have never seen someone get hurt - I've seen plenty of funky things and occassionally some dirty things but never saw an injury.

And I've never gotten separated from my child or otherwise seen it happen.

But you keep worrying - I guarantee every time you drive, park and walk in to your suburban McDonald's with a kid in tow that it is more dangerous than any trip on public transit, with or without a kid.

This. As for the worries about getting hurt or separated or being ignored, that could happen in any setting where there are more kids than adults, but somehow most of us let our kids go on field trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't care if others want to send their kids but mine would not be going.

Good luck with that. My kid (and his friends) was talking about the trip nonstop for the weeks before and after the trip. He would have been heartbroken if he weren't allowed to go. If you were actually faced with the decision, I bet you would relent.

At 3? I think you're exaggerating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

Yes really very few fatalities - as is so few that in 42 years you can count them on two hands and one foot. Which is about the number of people who die in this region every single week in traffic accidents. But keep worrying about the wrong things.

And not sure why a kid would get hurt? I've been public transit reliant for 26 years and have never seen someone get hurt - I've seen plenty of funky things and occassionally some dirty things but never saw an injury.

And I've never gotten separated from my child or otherwise seen it happen.

But you keep worrying - I guarantee every time you drive, park and walk in to your suburban McDonald's with a kid in tow that it is more dangerous than any trip on public transit, with or without a kid.

This. As for the worries about getting hurt or separated or being ignored, that could happen in any setting where there are more kids than adults, but somehow most of us let our kids go on field trips.

Sorry, as someone who lives in the city without a car and takes my 2 toddlers on metro all the time, the people defending the 4:1 ratio of 3 yr olds to adults are being way too cavalier about safety. Try all you want to deflect by talking about fat suburban SUV driving moms, it doesn’t change the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

Yes really very few fatalities - as is so few that in 42 years you can count them on two hands and one foot. Which is about the number of people who die in this region every single week in traffic accidents. But keep worrying about the wrong things.

And not sure why a kid would get hurt? I've been public transit reliant for 26 years and have never seen someone get hurt - I've seen plenty of funky things and occassionally some dirty things but never saw an injury.

And I've never gotten separated from my child or otherwise seen it happen.

But you keep worrying - I guarantee every time you drive, park and walk in to your suburban McDonald's with a kid in tow that it is more dangerous than any trip on public transit, with or without a kid.

This. As for the worries about getting hurt or separated or being ignored, that could happen in any setting where there are more kids than adults, but somehow most of us let our kids go on field trips.

I'm perfectly happy, even eager, for my now-5 year old to go on field trips. I didn't want him to go as a 2 or 3 year old. The idea that he was going to go all the way to the Baltimore Aquarium at 2.5 (and miss his nap!) was just dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my 3 now 4 year old takes field trips all the time. I’m tagging along on one, via Metro, next week. To be honest, I’m more worried when they take the school’s bus on field trips than Metro. It’s fine, people.

+1. as someone posted upthread, metro has had very few fatalities ever on its existence. I’d be more worried about having the kids in a car or a bus. My kids have always enjoyed riding metro, and if I see a kid having a problem on metro it’s usually because the kid is hungry and the parent didn’t have a snack available.

Well that's comforting, very few fatalities! What about getting hurt or separated? Or just ignored because there's too much going on.

Yes really very few fatalities - as is so few that in 42 years you can count them on two hands and one foot. Which is about the number of people who die in this region every single week in traffic accidents. But keep worrying about the wrong things.

And not sure why a kid would get hurt? I've been public transit reliant for 26 years and have never seen someone get hurt - I've seen plenty of funky things and occassionally some dirty things but never saw an injury.

And I've never gotten separated from my child or otherwise seen it happen.

But you keep worrying - I guarantee every time you drive, park and walk in to your suburban McDonald's with a kid in tow that it is more dangerous than any trip on public transit, with or without a kid.

This. As for the worries about getting hurt or separated or being ignored, that could happen in any setting where there are more kids than adults, but somehow most of us let our kids go on field trips.

Sorry, as someone who lives in the city without a car and takes my 2 toddlers on metro all the time, the people defending the 4:1 ratio of 3 yr olds to adults are being way too cavalier about safety. Try all you want to deflect by talking about fat suburban SUV driving moms, it doesn’t change the reality.

Yes. I've had to sprint out of the L'Enfant Plaza metro not once but TWICE in the past 3-4 months due to a crowd panic about an active shooter (was not in either case). That stuff is only going to get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:some weird vibe here like "Hipster city parents and their adventurous, well-behaved children vs old lame fat suburbanites and their sad unadventurous children".

personally for toddlers and 3 year olds, this kind of trip is not worth the stress. For 4-5 year olds, I could see a carefully planned outing with a lot of parent volunteers as worthwhile. As pp mentioned, the PITA factor alone of dealing with a class of recently potty trained kids with no available bathroom would make it a non started for me.

This! I'm the typical city person who moved to the burbs when I had kids, and I loved living in the city and being able to walk or metro everywhere. But IMO there are a LOT of things you can do for 3 yo enrichment that are less complicated than a metro trip to a museum or something. It's not that I think they wouldn't be safe, I just agree with PP that the PITA:Reward ratio is too high. When my son was 3, he was just as happy at Petsmart as he was at the zoo (he liked being able to see the animals up close). At 5 yo, obviously the zoo wins out.

To OP, I wouldn't be happy with a 3:1 ratio with unfit teachers. Definitely volunteer to go - you'll feel better about it, you'll help out the preggo teacher - win/win!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't care if others want to send their kids but mine would not be going.

Good luck with that. My kid (and his friends) was talking about the trip nonstop for the weeks before and after the trip. He would have been heartbroken if he weren't allowed to go. If you were actually faced with the decision, I bet you would relent.

At 3? I think you're exaggerating.

My kid was 5, others in his class were 4. But his three year old younger sister was disappointed she didn't get to go, so even at that age I don't think you would be out of the woods completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some weird vibe here like "Hipster city parents and their adventurous, well-behaved children vs old lame fat suburbanites and their sad unadventurous children".

personally for toddlers and 3 year olds, this kind of trip is not worth the stress. For 4-5 year olds, I could see a carefully planned outing with a lot of parent volunteers as worthwhile. As pp mentioned, the PITA factor alone of dealing with a class of recently potty trained kids with no available bathroom would make it a non started for me.

This! I'm the typical city person who moved to the burbs when I had kids, and I loved living in the city and being able to walk or metro everywhere. But IMO there are a LOT of things you can do for 3 yo enrichment that are less complicated than a metro trip to a museum or something. It's not that I think they wouldn't be safe, I just agree with PP that the PITA:Reward ratio is too high. When my son was 3, he was just as happy at Petsmart as he was at the zoo (he liked being able to see the animals up close). At 5 yo, obviously the zoo wins out.

To OP, I wouldn't be happy with a 3:1 ratio with unfit teachers. Definitely volunteer to go - you'll feel better about it, you'll help out the preggo teacher - win/win!

I don't think it's being a typical city person to move out to the burbs when you have kids (from someone who is a city person and stayed in the city once I had kids, along with many many other families in DC). Perhaps if you hadn't moved to the suburbs, you wouldn't find a metro trip to the museum complicated. For me, it was one of the easiest things to do with my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't care if others want to send their kids but mine would not be going.

Good luck with that. My kid (and his friends) was talking about the trip nonstop for the weeks before and after the trip. He would have been heartbroken if he weren't allowed to go. If you were actually faced with the decision, I bet you would relent.

At 3? I think you're exaggerating.

My kid was 5, others in his class were 4. But his three year old younger sister was disappointed she didn't get to go, so even at that age I don't think you would be out of the woods completely.

Right. HUGE difference between a class of 5 year olds on the metro, and their enjoyment of a field trip, and 2-3 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some weird vibe here like "Hipster city parents and their adventurous, well-behaved children vs old lame fat suburbanites and their sad unadventurous children".

personally for toddlers and 3 year olds, this kind of trip is not worth the stress. For 4-5 year olds, I could see a carefully planned outing with a lot of parent volunteers as worthwhile. As pp mentioned, the PITA factor alone of dealing with a class of recently potty trained kids with no available bathroom would make it a non started for me.

This! I'm the typical city person who moved to the burbs when I had kids, and I loved living in the city and being able to walk or metro everywhere. But IMO there are a LOT of things you can do for 3 yo enrichment that are less complicated than a metro trip to a museum or something. It's not that I think they wouldn't be safe, I just agree with PP that the PITA:Reward ratio is too high. When my son was 3, he was just as happy at Petsmart as he was at the zoo (he liked being able to see the animals up close). At 5 yo, obviously the zoo wins out.

To OP, I wouldn't be happy with a 3:1 ratio with unfit teachers. Definitely volunteer to go - you'll feel better about it, you'll help out the preggo teacher - win/win!

I don't think it's being a typical city person to move out to the burbs when you have kids (from someone who is a city person and stayed in the city once I had kids, along with many many other families in DC). Perhaps if you hadn't moved to the suburbs, you wouldn't find a metro trip to the museum complicated. For me, it was one of the easiest things to do with my kids.

It's easy WITH YOUR 2 KIDS. That's not the same as a whole class of 3 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some weird vibe here like "Hipster city parents and their adventurous, well-behaved children vs old lame fat suburbanites and their sad unadventurous children".

personally for toddlers and 3 year olds, this kind of trip is not worth the stress. For 4-5 year olds, I could see a carefully planned outing with a lot of parent volunteers as worthwhile. As pp mentioned, the PITA factor alone of dealing with a class of recently potty trained kids with no available bathroom would make it a non started for me.

This! I'm the typical city person who moved to the burbs when I had kids, and I loved living in the city and being able to walk or metro everywhere. But IMO there are a LOT of things you can do for 3 yo enrichment that are less complicated than a metro trip to a museum or something. It's not that I think they wouldn't be safe, I just agree with PP that the PITA:Reward ratio is too high. When my son was 3, he was just as happy at Petsmart as he was at the zoo (he liked being able to see the animals up close). At 5 yo, obviously the zoo wins out.

To OP, I wouldn't be happy with a 3:1 ratio with unfit teachers. Definitely volunteer to go - you'll feel better about it, you'll help out the preggo teacher - win/win!

I don't think it's being a typical city person to move out to the burbs when you have kids (from someone who is a city person and stayed in the city once I had kids, along with many many other families in DC). Perhaps if you hadn't moved to the suburbs, you wouldn't find a metro trip to the museum complicated. For me, it was one of the easiest things to do with my kids.

It's easy WITH YOUR 2 KIDS. That's not the same as a whole class of 3 year olds.

It's a whole class of 3 year olds plus the daycare professionals who the parents trust to manage them every day. Spare me the drama.