MD parents: You're going to want to do everything you can to keep your kid's spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

What?! First of all, I really am just a parent, but even if I wasn’t, what do you think would be accomplished for my apparently money-grabbing scheme, by making this post? Do you think I’d be able to somehow get money from you via this post?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

That grand pronouncement is as devoid of meaning as your claims, without any support, that this is bribery or extortion. But, if you would like, feel free to ask Jeff.

There are at least three responses to the post at 15:55 saying a lottery would be fairer. Mine is the third, 16:02. I had nothing to do with the other two and have no reason to think they were done by the same person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

That grand pronouncement is as devoid of meaning as your claims, without any support, that this is bribery or extortion. But, if you would like, feel free to ask Jeff.

There are at least three responses to the post at 15:55 saying a lottery would be fairer. Mine is the third, 16:02. I had nothing to do with the other two and have no reason to think they were done by the same person.

This is OP. I agree; ask Jeff to verify whether I was sock puppeting. He’ll tell you I wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

That grand pronouncement is as devoid of meaning as your claims, without any support, that this is bribery or extortion. But, if you would like, feel free to ask Jeff.

There are at least three responses to the post at 15:55 saying a lottery would be fairer. Mine is the third, 16:02. I had nothing to do with the other two and have no reason to think they were done by the same person.

So contrary to what you or someone else said, there is not a majority of posters on this thread who agree with selecting families based on how much they paid throughout the closure?

Which is it, then?

Get your stories straight, people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

That grand pronouncement is as devoid of meaning as your claims, without any support, that this is bribery or extortion. But, if you would like, feel free to ask Jeff.

There are at least three responses to the post at 15:55 saying a lottery would be fairer. Mine is the third, 16:02. I had nothing to do with the other two and have no reason to think they were done by the same person.

So contrary to what you or someone else said, there is not a majority of posters on this thread who agree with selecting families based on how much they paid throughout the closure?

Which is it, then?

Get your stories straight, people!

This is OP. I haven’t sock puppeted at all. I have no reason to believe there is anything fishy going on, but like PP said — ask Jeff. He’ll tell you.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to the real issue - if my daycare goes part capacity, will the fact that I haven't been paying affect me?

We have not lost our jobs but I do worry about downsizing. While it is a very difficult decision for the daycares, it is also a very difficult decision for parents. I would love to have the means to pay for daycare even though I'm not using it. But the savings right now are a silver lining in a cloud of work-and-stay-at-home-parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to the real issue - if my daycare goes part capacity, will the fact that I haven't been paying affect me?

We have not lost our jobs but I do worry about downsizing. While it is a very difficult decision for the daycares, it is also a very difficult decision for parents. I would love to have the means to pay for daycare even though I'm not using it. But the savings right now are a silver lining in a cloud of work-and-stay-at-home-parenting.

You need to ask your daycare, but there’s a very real possibility your daycare will prioritize based on who has been paying.

[Anonymous]

It could easily be 6 months to even a year. Its not reasonable for a child care center to expect a family to pay when they don't know they have a slot yet and they already have kids there from essential workers. If they are getting state money they should not be taking money from parents or guarantee a spot. Its going to be a hot mess for a while. Even if you pay there is no guarantee you will get a spot. Same with what they did on the waitlists. We paid for many waitlists and got one call when our child was 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

You’re sock-puppeting. It’s obvious in the writing style.

That grand pronouncement is as devoid of meaning as your claims, without any support, that this is bribery or extortion. But, if you would like, feel free to ask Jeff.

There are at least three responses to the post at 15:55 saying a lottery would be fairer. Mine is the third, 16:02. I had nothing to do with the other two and have no reason to think they were done by the same person.

So contrary to what you or someone else said, there is not a majority of posters on this thread who agree with selecting families based on how much they paid throughout the closure?

Which is it, then?

Get your stories straight, people!

I'm very confused. How did my post contradict that most people seem to think the daycare is being reasonable. There were three people who responded to the post saying a lottery would be more fair. Those three posts all [/i]disagreed[i] and thought it was ok to give spots to those who had paid. There are no stories to get straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could easily be 6 months to even a year. Its not reasonable for a child care center to expect a family to pay when they don't know they have a slot yet and they already have kids there from essential workers. If they are getting state money they should not be taking money from parents or guarantee a spot. Its going to be a hot mess for a while. Even if you pay there is no guarantee you will get a spot. Same with what they did on the waitlists. We paid for many waitlists and got one call when our child was 4.

They are getting state money to cover part of the tuition for essential workers who are sending their kids there. The state money doesn’t even come close to covering the costs of keeping the building open, paying teachers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

What they said is that paying full tuition would ensure your spot when they reopen. I don’t think SO many people paid full tuition that this wasn’t a reasonable statement.

There is a $0 tuition option, but they were very clear that this only reserved your spot for that month. Nothing else was guaranteed.

Then there are intermediary tuition options that give you access to various distance learning options. These people are prioritized, but lower than essential personnel and full-tuition paying families.

Okay, so that's very clear. At first it sounded like you were at one of the places where they stopped charging but then asked people to voluntarily donate their monthly fees in whole or in part if they could. If one of those places then says "Hey, we're in a bind trying to figure out who gets to come back, so we're going to give it to the people who chose to donate the most to us while we were closed, even though they were never asked to pay to hold their spot or told that they amount they paid has anything to do with who gets a spot," that's a different story.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Well, it's definitely very different from a situation where you know in advance that you have to keep paying to hold your spot, as opposed to being explicitly told "you don't need to pay, but we'd appreciate it if you can afford to contribute a little something" and then later on hearing "whoops, you were making hard decisions about your family's finances but it was secretly a test, and everyone who could comfortably afford to keep paying gets to stay!"

I would think if you have to cut families it's probably best to just do some kind of random number generator thing, luck of the draw. It still really, really sucks for the families who lose their spots, but at least it's not unfair and would result in less hard feelings.

"Family A, I know you have been paying full cost for the last 4 months. We really appreciate it. But sorry, our random number generator selected Family B, who hasn't paid a dime in the past 4 months, for the final open spot we have. Sorry, we have to cut you loose - thanks for your donation!"

That isn't unfair?

We must have really different definitions of fairness.

Do folks really think that it's fair to say that only the richest families deserve to go back to daycare, and those who can't afford to make thousands of dollars of voluntary donations to their daycare during months when their own paycheck may have been cut dramatically due to furloughs or fewer hours or lower wages or loss of self-employment income don't?

You think it's unfair to tell people who could afford to make huge donations that their wealth and generosity doesn't make them and their kids better and more deserving than everyone else. I think it's unfair to tell the richest families (who can probably afford a nanny if they lose the spot) that they get to keep their daycare, while the families who earn less and donated less or none get kicked out and probably have no option for child care besides one of the parents quitting their job.

[Anonymous]

Np. We received communication last week as well from preschool. We were told that it would be limited to 10 people (incld. staff and teachers) per room. Their capacity is limited to 50%. Previous communication did talk about how we were to continue paying full or half (instead of withdrawing) and that we would have priority once the school opens. so it's the same thing as what OP said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could easily be 6 months to even a year. Its not reasonable for a child care center to expect a family to pay when they don't know they have a slot yet and they already have kids there from essential workers. If they are getting state money they should not be taking money from parents or guarantee a spot. Its going to be a hot mess for a while. Even if you pay there is no guarantee you will get a spot. Same with what they did on the waitlists. We paid for many waitlists and got one call when our child was 4.

That presupposes state money is anywhere near what they were making before/what they would need to make to stay in business. My understanding is that the state pays far less per kid and you can have very few kids relative to normal operations.

Our daycare gave us fairly detailed information showing expenses, reserves, etc. I obviously didn't audit it, but it seemed legit. They claimed that they needed people to pay about 33% of tuition overall to be able to withstand a shutdown that continued for more than another month or two. They also said that some people were paying full tuition, others none, and plenty in between.

They have NOT said how they will prioritize if there are limited slots.

It is a hot mess, but I am not sure what can be done about it. It isn't fair for parents to keep paying, especially when it is uncertain when there will be a spot. But, if enough parents don't pay, the daycare won't make it and there won't be spots for anyone to return to.

It is a tough situation for all involved -- broad sweeping statements about unfairness and illegality by some on this thread don't take into account the realities of what everyone is facing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

The WORSE option is to extort parents into full tuition to hold their spots.
It’s grossly unethical.

I would select based on direst need for childcare.

Making this your policy sets you up for getting sued. How would you know???

The things you need to ask to know this are actually illegal.