For people who say "school is not for childcare"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it means that while we have built our society around the fact that having kids in school provides de facto child care for families, the purpose of school is not child care, so should not be the deciding factor in opening schools.

This can also be used as an opening for a conversation about who is responsible for child care, if not schools. Should government (separate from the school system) provide it, as in some countries? Should it be an employment benefit that people should push for so it becomes more of an expectation (as health insurance is)? Should stay at home parents get paid?

Because our social system was built on the expectation that a parent (Mother) would stay home with the kids, when women started joining the workforce in greater numbers, people took advantage of the system that was in place (schools) and added onto that (before and after care, summer camps) rather than re-inventing a better way to provide childcare. That is the conversation we should be having.

But even if these things were provided by the government or employers, they would not be provided (separately from school) during a normal school year because the government is already providing them through the schools. Kids between ages 6-18 are going to be in school anyway, so creating a massive system of backup care (capable of handling all children at once, not just a few who are sick on a given day) would be a huge waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom.
School is not child care.
I don’t have the answers. But school is not child care.

It's not pejorative, it's factual. They're taking care of children who are not old enough to take care of themselves. It's the definition of childcare.

NP. If a kid is admitted to a hospital for something, if a kid is at someone else’s house for a play date, if a kid is at karate class, all of those things provide oversight of your child for specified purposes but are not childcare. It’s the same concept with schools. They are not your employees. They are not there to watch your kids. They are there to educate your children. Your childcare problems are none of their concern.

Lol. Ok. I guess you understand what childcare is.

[Anonymous]

I think the PP who talked about learning coaches has a good point. I can keep my kid safe and healthy at home. I cannot reasonably do my normal job and also be a hands-on facilitator throughout the day on a school day schedule. The deal here is not that parents provide safe childcare and teachers educate, it's that parents and teachers split the educational burden. I have had SO many teachers tell me their training isn't just about subject matter, it's child psych, classroom management, etc. Those are the things distance learning will be leaning very heavily on parents to figure out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hate how the phrase degrades the valuable work of childcare providers, who are nearly all women.

When teachers union leaders say this, it comes across as incredibly out of touch and degrading. I don't understand why they do not see how awful they sound when they talk like this.

Agree. That’s another reason it’s cringey

Except teachers themselves are predominantly women and childcare providers are not expected to write legal documents, take data, conduct assessments, prepare children for state tests, etc.
If childcare providers want to become teachers, they are certainly free to work through school to make that happen. I was a nanny and I got my transitional license, went to school at night, and worked my way through my certification. The two jobs are not the same, and one of them requires a master's degree, while the other does not require any educational qualifications. That's reality.

Just stop.

I know. Lol. The 2nd to last sentence tipped it over the edge...

Why, because you think it's unkind to point out that some jobs require qualifications and degrees while others do not? Because it's true, and it isn't an opinion. Just like you can become a restaurant worker, a factory worker, or a bus driver without a diploma but you can't become a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, an accountant, or many many other professions. If daycare providers decide they want the high salaries and prestige of teachers (sarcasm) then they should become teachers. The primary function of daycare is childcare, the primary function of school is education. That is the difference. It's not like daycare workers are primarily women and teachers are primarily men.
Lots of people who want to cry that school closures are a feminist crisis while conveniently ignoring the people who actually run our schools.

You keep demonstrating the point by being insulting and degrading. You should really think about how you come across.

There was no point to demonstrate. "Just stop" is not an argument and has no basis in fact. That's your opinion. I did not say anything insulting or degrading. I did not use pejoratives or name call anyone (unlike the people on here constantly bashing teachers for being "lazy" and "whiners"). It is fundamentally true that daycare is childcare and school is for educational purposes. If you find it upsetting to acknowledge that different jobs require different qualifications and serve different functions, then we won't get anywhere. Do you also pretend that you "don't see color"?

I didn't say "just stop." And as for you, after that utterly out of touch and unaware ramble, you segue into an outright insult (your last sentence), so I think you've neatly made the point that people who say "school isn't childcare" come across as entitled and pejorative for me, thanks.

You are the one who is insulting other people. Let's count, in just that short response. "Utterly out of touch", "Unaware", "ramble". You seem to be totally unable to see outside yourself. I made a comparison to many people's unwillingness to talk about class or race because it's relevant here.
By the way, I don't think that daycare providers are somehow unaware that they are childcare. If people didn't need childcare, daycare would not exist. It isn't insulting to state the function of their job, just as it is not insulting to say that a grocery store worker stocks shelves, takes inventory, and manages transactions at a cash register.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom.
School is not child care.
I don’t have the answers. But school is not child care.

It's not pejorative, it's factual. They're taking care of children who are not old enough to take care of themselves. It's the definition of childcare.

NP. If a kid is admitted to a hospital for something, if a kid is at someone else’s house for a play date, if a kid is at karate class, all of those things provide oversight of your child for specified purposes but are not childcare. It’s the same concept with schools. They are not your employees. They are not there to watch your kids. They are there to educate your children. Your childcare problems are none of their concern.

The examples you give are all private entities. They do not have to be providing services. There aren't legal mandates. Public education isn't like this. Parents reasonably rely on legally mandated education for childcare and to pretend otherwise is disassembling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom.
School is not child care.
I don’t have the answers. But school is not child care.

It's not pejorative, it's factual. They're taking care of children who are not old enough to take care of themselves. It's the definition of childcare.

NP. If a kid is admitted to a hospital for something, if a kid is at someone else’s house for a play date, if a kid is at karate class, all of those things provide oversight of your child for specified purposes but are not childcare. It’s the same concept with schools. They are not your employees. They are not there to watch your kids. They are there to educate your children. Your childcare problems are none of their concern.

The examples you give are all private entities. They do not have to be providing services. There aren't legal mandates. Public education isn't like this. Parents reasonably rely on legally mandated education for childcare and to pretend otherwise is disassembling.

Public schools have no mandate to provide childcare. Just an education. For people to argue that the education isn't the same is silly. Is going to the bank the same? Is going to the grocery store? Is anything? Things are not going to be the same until this is over.

[Anonymous]

You can’t just pretend that schools don’t provide childcare because you don’t want to undertake the burden of providing childcare in the absence of school. Schools provide childcare. I think people who argue otherwise are really dense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom.
School is not child care.
I don’t have the answers. But school is not child care.

It's not pejorative, it's factual. They're taking care of children who are not old enough to take care of themselves. It's the definition of childcare.

NP. If a kid is admitted to a hospital for something, if a kid is at someone else’s house for a play date, if a kid is at karate class, all of those things provide oversight of your child for specified purposes but are not childcare. It’s the same concept with schools. They are not your employees. They are not there to watch your kids. They are there to educate your children. Your childcare problems are none of their concern.

The examples you give are all private entities. They do not have to be providing services. There aren't legal mandates. Public education isn't like this. Parents reasonably rely on legally mandated education for childcare and to pretend otherwise is disassembling.

Public schools have no mandate to provide childcare. Just an education. For people to argue that the education isn't the same is silly. Is going to the bank the same? Is going to the grocery store? Is anything? Things are not going to be the same until this is over.

That education usually involves the students being present in a group together with a teacher, without parents there. And the only thing different about going to the grocery store now is wearing a mask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom.
School is not child care.
I don’t have the answers. But school is not child care.

It's not pejorative, it's factual. They're taking care of children who are not old enough to take care of themselves. It's the definition of childcare.

NP. If a kid is admitted to a hospital for something, if a kid is at someone else’s house for a play date, if a kid is at karate class, all of those things provide oversight of your child for specified purposes but are not childcare. It’s the same concept with schools. They are not your employees. They are not there to watch your kids. They are there to educate your children. Your childcare problems are none of their concern.

The examples you give are all private entities. They do not have to be providing services. There aren't legal mandates. Public education isn't like this. Parents reasonably rely on legally mandated education for childcare and to pretend otherwise is disassembling.

Public schools have no mandate to provide childcare. Just an education. For people to argue that the education isn't the same is silly. Is going to the bank the same? Is going to the grocery store? Is anything? Things are not going to be the same until this is over.

I mean, yeah, going to the bank and grocery store are basically the same. We just have to wear masks. Distance learning for a 5 year old is far more fundamentally different and arguably not the same service.

I'm not even arguing that public schools should open. I don't think they should around here. But I think the hand waving about how education can be provided just as well from a distance, and parents are only complaining because they need day care, is sheer denial. Let's at least acknowledge how crappy this is and how much kids are missing out on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hate how the phrase degrades the valuable work of childcare providers, who are nearly all women.

When teachers union leaders say this, it comes across as incredibly out of touch and degrading. I don't understand why they do not see how awful they sound when they talk like this.

Agree. That’s another reason it’s cringey

Except teachers themselves are predominantly women and childcare providers are not expected to write legal documents, take data, conduct assessments, prepare children for state tests, etc.
If childcare providers want to become teachers, they are certainly free to work through school to make that happen. I was a nanny and I got my transitional license, went to school at night, and worked my way through my certification. The two jobs are not the same, and one of them requires a master's degree, while the other does not require any educational qualifications. That's reality.

Just stop.

I know. Lol. The 2nd to last sentence tipped it over the edge...

Why, because you think it's unkind to point out that some jobs require qualifications and degrees while others do not? Because it's true, and it isn't an opinion. Just like you can become a restaurant worker, a factory worker, or a bus driver without a diploma but you can't become a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, an accountant, or many many other professions. If daycare providers decide they want the high salaries and prestige of teachers (sarcasm) then they should become teachers. The primary function of daycare is childcare, the primary function of school is education. That is the difference. It's not like daycare workers are primarily women and teachers are primarily men.
Lots of people who want to cry that school closures are a feminist crisis while conveniently ignoring the people who actually run our schools.

It's not true. let's start with one lie.. being a teacher does not require a master's degree.

Please don't tell me what's preferred or competitive. You can also get a degree in knitting and become a teacher through teach for America- placed in a school.

People come on this board and just say whatever.

[Anonymous]

How much public support do you think there would be for public schools if they couldn't be used for child care?

The remarks is thread are ridiculously out of touch with reality. Regardless of whether child care is a primary function of public schools or not, it's absolutely viewed and used that way. If we end up with universal child care, you can bet they're not going to set anything up for schools days between ~9-3pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that childcare is not the primary purpose of school, if it were it would be open year round like daycare.

Yes, but it is A purpose of school. To say it's not puts an unfair amount of burden on working parents.

Closing schools definitely has a major impact on US families -- to the point where it can make it hard for families to stay intact and survive -- but that doesn't mean it is a mandate of the schools. Not of how they are designed. The mandate is the education.

Now that also doens't mean that it shouldn't be part of tha mandate -- it just isn't. SO, for example, if you have a kid who leaves formal schooling because you are going to homeschool or unschool, or if the child is over 16 and decides not to go, you can't just drop those kids off at school on the days you need to work. They are either an enrolled student or not, and if enrolled, ithey have to be in classes.a

Some countries have universal daycare provisions, or state-sponsered childcare availability. We don't. Maybe we should. But that's not the same question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much public support do you think there would be for public schools if they couldn't be used for child care?

The remarks is thread are ridiculously out of touch with reality. Regardless of whether child care is a primary function of public schools or not, it's absolutely viewed and used that way. If we end up with universal child care, you can bet they're not going to set anything up for schools days between ~9-3pm.

I think the school is not childcare posters in this thread have been doing an admirable job demonstrating why people cringe when they say that. It's amazingly out of touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you say that legally my child must be enrolled in school for first grade, but that same child cannot legally be by themselves in my home, then yes, school is for childcare.

Are you in a state that does not allow homeschooling, then? What state is that?

I don't think your "if" holds. I think it actually proves the opposite point -- that there has to be a plan for education, but not necessarily in person at an elementary school.

Which leads us back to the acceptability of DL to fulfil the mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that childcare is not the primary purpose of school, if it were it would be open year round like daycare.

Yes, but it is A purpose of school. To say it's not puts an unfair amount of burden on working parents.

Closing schools definitely has a major impact on US families -- to the point where it can make it hard for families to stay intact and survive -- but that doesn't mean it is a mandate of the schools. Not of how they are designed. The mandate is the education.

Now that also doens't mean that it shouldn't be part of tha mandate -- it just isn't. SO, for example, if you have a kid who leaves formal schooling because you are going to homeschool or unschool, or if the child is over 16 and decides not to go, you can't just drop those kids off at school on the days you need to work. They are either an enrolled student or not, and if enrolled, ithey have to be in classes.a

Some countries have universal daycare provisions, or state-sponsered childcare availability. We don't. Maybe we should. But that's not the same question.

The mandate is not just education. Case point- 4 million meals being served this spring/ summer. These boards were literally begging people to pick up meals because some locations were throwing out so much food. Dont you think they could have cut some locations off that did not have high pick up rates? No, because they must feed families.

Case in point 2- mcps cannot open without providing transportation to schools to children. Why hasn't everyone been screaming, "school is uber!" Bussing is not education. But School cannot open without it by law. Because theoretically school is an uber also. You can't have one without the other.

The school systems and government chose to prioritize what they want- they could do DL and childcate not for pay if they chose to.