Who is using all these preschools?

[Anonymous]

If your kids are not in daycare what do you do all day when they are at school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kids are not in daycare what do you do all day when they are at school?

? What do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have done both, so let me offer my perspective:
My oldest was in daycare preschool. A respected (Bright Horizons) center in DC. We then had a second child, and after maternity leave ended, DD2 went there too, in the infant room. It worked well and I was generally happy -- DC1 learning age-appropriate things, etc.
As DC1 approached age 3, I visited traditional preschools in order to compare. Some were not that much different than the daycare preschool. Lots of free play, circle time, etc. Others were very different -- more lessons, more structure, more rules -- more school-like.
The overwhelming difference, though, was the teachers. The daycare teachers, although some were certified teachers, were MUCH less engaged with the children. The daycare preschool room was more chaotic. The teachers seemed to know very little about child development. As my child got older, more inquisitve, and more defiant at times, they were less and less equipped to handle him. I observed the room frequently, and most of the kids wandered the room for much of the day. Although there was one "gem" of a teacher, one gem is not going to make up for a handful of non-engaging babysitters. I found out that the "CDA" certificate that many daycare teachers have is a SIX week course. That's right, six weeks.

Re. NAEYC accreditation, most (if not all) DC BH centers are NAEYC accredited. When I visited a downtown BH center, I thought, like PP, it was great for infants (esp for BFing working moms nearby), but not for toddlers. DC, age 2.5, is now in a small, non-NAEYC, but fully licensed, preschool which is a much better fit.

So, NAEYC accreditation may be a good indicator of quality, but does not substitute a visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Am I missing something?

Yes. Preschool is school. Teachers in preschools have degree in education and various certifications to keep up. A great preschool has NAEYC accreditation.

Daycare is babysitting.

So target a few preschools, find out if any parents at these schools do nanny shares, and then make your decision. Early childhood education is very expensive--hence the push for pre-K in public elementary schools.

I've been reading a lot lately about how play is the best way for children to learn in kindergarten and before. So maybe daycare isn't all that bad if it's run by loving, attentive caregivers. I love my daycare, and the other kids there are happy, respectful to others, and always playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the posts about sacrifices are ridiculous.

Nanny + preschool is a "choice" only for the very wealthy who are not making sacrifices.

That's a ridiculous statement. If you do a nanny share, it's manageable, especially if you're bringing in two FT incomes.

That's a ridiculous statement itself ... wouldn't it depend on how much the FT incomes are? Not all FT incomes are six figures ...

New poster here, but the ORIGINAL post is ridiculous because you are saying that Nanny + preschool is only for the VERY wealthy who are not making sacrifices.

Our HH is not very wealthy.

We make 170K/yr and have a baby and a 3.5yr old and nanny. The nanny makes $13/hr (because she brings her child along) for 40hrs a week. I then have my toddler in preschool that cost me $600/mo. My total out of pocket expenses are $30,000 for the nanny (inc additional employment taxes) and my cost for preschool + summer camps is $7,200/yr. This brings my total childcare costs to 37,000/year. This is a HUGE portion of my take home income. We bring home $8800/mo and PAY $3,000/mo in childcare expenses. You don't think this is a sacrifice for this VERY WEALTHY family? A VERY WEALTHY person does not have to spend 34% of their income on childcare.

Yes, it is great that we can stretch the budget and make this work, but it certainly would be a hell of a lot easier financially if I took my 2 children to daycare to the tune of a $2,000/mo. I do this to gain back time with my children, as I don't have to do drop offs and pick ups and my nanny runs errands and does light cleaning.

Saying you are not wealthy while making 170k is ridiculous.

A family of 4 with two working parents making 170K is not wealthy. There is a difference between being comfortable and being wealthy. We are not in the same category as someone "wealthy". The median income in my county for a "family" is 122K and 37% of the county is in my income bracket, not exactly "elite". Though people make more money, you HAVE to push salaries working in this area, when the average home cost 536K. 170K is not the same in this area as it is in small town USA.

If you think 170K is wealthy, does making 400K/yr get you on the forbes list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Am I missing something?

Yes. Preschool is school. Teachers in preschools have degree in education and various certifications to keep up. A great preschool has NAEYC accreditation.

Daycare is babysitting.

So target a few preschools, find out if any parents at these schools do nanny shares, and then make your decision. Early childhood education is very expensive--hence the push for pre-K in public elementary schools.

I've been reading a lot lately about how play is the best way for children to learn in kindergarten and before. So maybe daycare isn't all that bad if it's run by loving, attentive caregivers. I love my daycare, and the other kids there are happy, respectful to others, and always playing.

Actually, it's "structured" play that is best-the kind of play "taught" at preschools and progressive schools. It's not playing in someone's back yard or playing in a daycare rec center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Saying you are not wealthy while making 170k is ridiculous.

I agree with you. I make $80 k and spend $20k a year on FT child care because I have no other choice. And I consider myself lucky when I read about the other moms who make it on WAY less than I do.

Paying $37k a year for child care is a LUXURY. You are paying $37k a year when you could purchase your child care for a lot less. Because you can AFFORD to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Am I missing something?

Yes. Preschool is school. Teachers in preschools have degree in education and various certifications to keep up. A great preschool has NAEYC accreditation.

Daycare is babysitting.

So target a few preschools, find out if any parents at these schools do nanny shares, and then make your decision. Early childhood education is very expensive--hence the push for pre-K in public elementary schools.

I've been reading a lot lately about how play is the best way for children to learn in kindergarten and before. So maybe daycare isn't all that bad if it's run by loving, attentive caregivers. I love my daycare, and the other kids there are happy, respectful to others, and always playing.

Actually, it's "structured" play that is best-the kind of play "taught" at preschools and progressive schools. It's not playing in someone's back yard or playing in a daycare rec center.

Another pro daycare mom here. We only need part time care so a nanny wouldn't have worked for us, and we have daycare in our building so gave it a shot. So far we are just doing infant care but the center is NAEYC accredited and the preschool program looks just fine and we plan to have DD there until she starts school. It is hardly a "rec center." The teachers are great and we are happy with the program and with the attention our baby gets.

It sounds like you don't think daycare would work for your family, or maybe you are a SAHM and don't need daycare, but please don't put all daycare centers down. It doesn't seem necessary, especially since it sounds like the OP works and likely has to find an alternative to half day preschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Am I missing something?

Yes. Preschool is school. Teachers in preschools have degree in education and various certifications to keep up. A great preschool has NAEYC accreditation.

Daycare is babysitting.

So target a few preschools, find out if any parents at these schools do nanny shares, and then make your decision. Early childhood education is very expensive--hence the push for pre-K in public elementary schools.

I've been reading a lot lately about how play is the best way for children to learn in kindergarten and before. So maybe daycare isn't all that bad if it's run by loving, attentive caregivers. I love my daycare, and the other kids there are happy, respectful to others, and always playing.

Actually, it's "structured" play that is best-the kind of play "taught" at preschools and progressive schools. It's not playing in someone's back yard or playing in a daycare rec center.

I don't agree with this at all. From what I read, what is missing in kids lives is total free play - as in playing with whatever they have, playing with other kids in a playground, backyard, daycare type environment. From what I remember, the theory is kids need complete free play in order to understand how life works - as in - you are mean to other kids, and they are mean back. Other kids will cry if picked on. You have to take turns or a shoving contents starts.

Personally, I hate the places that claim to have free play and then say "well, I mean we structure it, we don't let the kids play with what they want, we tell them what to play with" - sadly which happens most at accredited places (or the ones I toured- I cannot speak for all).

I think the "best" school depends on what the parents are looking for. Me, I'm looking for a place that will allow my kid to be a kid. To foster his mind - but mainly through his own creativity and through learning interpersonal skills. And I want plenty of time for him to just PLAY. We can always teach him the alphabet on our own. We don't need a school to do that. And we trust our public school, so we don't need to get him the right "credentials" to get him in to the fanciest private school (which I can see if that is a parent's wishes, why they would stay away from the more-daycare-like settings).

Personally, we think we've found what we want at full-day daycare/preschool setting. But I can see why someone with a different need would feel they need to go to a more school-like setting.

[Anonymous]

"Saying you are not wealthy while making 170k is ridiculous. "

Ahh, was waiting for this. You know, there's a whole thread on this. Please go there to resurrect this same tired argument.

[Anonymous]

So, NAEYC accreditation may be a good indicator of quality, but does not substitute a visit.

Wow, no one is saying that any accreditation is the be-all and end-all of anything, and that OP or anyone else should forgo a visit, references etc. It is an indicator of quality and diligence (apparently the paperwork to get the NAEYC stamp of approval is a bitch).

Agree that spending $37,400 annually on childcare is luxury.

And, I don't think I've ever read anything on this site with which I agree more than this:

My children have good genes, and engaged parents, they'll do fabulous whatever school they attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the posts about sacrifices are ridiculous.

Nanny + preschool is a "choice" only for the very wealthy who are not making sacrifices.

That's a ridiculous statement. If you do a nanny share, it's manageable, especially if you're bringing in two FT incomes.

That's a ridiculous statement itself ... wouldn't it depend on how much the FT incomes are? Not all FT incomes are six figures ...

New poster here, but the ORIGINAL post is ridiculous because you are saying that Nanny + preschool is only for the VERY wealthy who are not making sacrifices.

Our HH is not very wealthy.

We make 170K/yr and have a baby and a 3.5yr old and nanny. The nanny makes $13/hr (because she brings her child along) for 40hrs a week. I then have my toddler in preschool that cost me $600/mo. My total out of pocket expenses are $30,000 for the nanny (inc additional employment taxes) and my cost for preschool + summer camps is $7,200/yr. This brings my total childcare costs to 37,000/year. This is a HUGE portion of my take home income. We bring home $8800/mo and PAY $3,000/mo in childcare expenses. You don't think this is a sacrifice for this VERY WEALTHY family? A VERY WEALTHY person does not have to spend 34% of their income on childcare.

Yes, it is great that we can stretch the budget and make this work, but it certainly would be a hell of a lot easier financially if I took my 2 children to daycare to the tune of a $2,000/mo. I do this to gain back time with my children, as I don't have to do drop offs and pick ups and my nanny runs errands and does light cleaning.

Saying you are not wealthy while making 170k is ridiculous.

Not in DC. We make twice that and sure as hell aren't wealthy. If we made this salary somewhere else--- cleveland, phoenix even--- like friends of ours we'd be living like Gods. And we are extremely frugal ppl. I have a 10 year old japanese car and my husband takes public transportation. we don't have any debt other than mortgage but we sure aren't livign like the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Saying you are not wealthy while making 170k is ridiculous.

Not in DC. We make twice that and sure as hell aren't wealthy. If we made this salary somewhere else--- cleveland, phoenix even--- like friends of ours we'd be living like Gods. And we are extremely frugal ppl. I have a 10 year old japanese car and my husband takes public transportation. we don't have any debt other than mortgage but we sure aren't livign like the wealthy.

You make $340,000, and you're not wealthy? What in the hell is your mortgage payment? $8,000 or more? I find this totally unbelievable!

[Anonymous]

WEALTHY is a word reserved for an elite and select few. Don't confuse well-off with wealthy. Wealthy is the Obamas, Bushes, Clintons, Hiltons, and the Pitts. These people can do whatever whenever and could all quit their day jobs, never work a day again in their lives and still live in decadence. We would last a year before the bank came along and took everything. I'm the 170k/yr poster. My DH brings in 125k of it. We are one major medical emergency away from poverty. If he can't work, how long do you think this "wealthy" family would survive on my 45k?

We are currently comfortable and HAPPY with what we have, but like so many Americans in this area at our salary, we could not survive terribly long on our savings. This is a reality and this does not put us into the WEALTHY category.

[Anonymous]

DH and I make a combined salary of over $170k, but we have almost no savings. Given the economy and the widespread layoffs, I think the lack of a healthy nest egg is what prevents us from choosing the more expensive care options for our DC. Sure, we have sufficient disposable income today to make ends meet if we were to hire a nanny rather than go through daycare, but if either of us loses our job or if we get hit with some other sort of bombshell, things would go south really fast. We have a big mortgage on a house we could never sell in this market, and it would only take a few months of delinquency to push us into serious debt. This way we can gradually build a very modest nest egg in anticipation of a rainy day. It's what's right for our family at this time. Very personal decision and not worth judging others if they see things differently....