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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ours was very open too. They said the state stipend only covers a portion of essential family tuition, so it doesn’t come close to covering their actual costs throughout this time. They also said they are responsible for paying for cleaning equipment, masks, etc. so it’s actually very expensive to operate right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. (For the sock puppet police, I have posted elsewhere, but I was not the one who posted the Family A/family B hypo being responded to.)

Is it fair that some people can afford the educated nanny and other can only afford a nanny with limited English and education? Is it unfair that someone can't afford any type of nanny, but can afford the fancy daycare? Is it unfair that someone can't afford the fancy daycare, but can afford the licensed home daycare? Is it unfair that someone can't afford a licensed home daycare, so send their kid to an unlicensed place? Etc.

It is simply a reality that some people can afford different and nicer things than others. That is a fact in all aspects of life -- why not here?

Your premise also assumes things that may not be true. You are assuming that only the rich people have being paying. Maybe. But, from conversations with parents and my own circumstances, I know there are plenty of people who could afford to pay, but aren't willing to do so when they are not receiving services. And they are taking the chance that they won't have a spot to go back to.

You are right that someone who lost their job probably isn't paying. But, what would happen in any other time if someone couldn't pay -- because of a job loss or otherwise? They would lose their spot. That's simply the way it works and the only way that a daycare, or any other business, can stay in business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hard to believe you could fit so many straw men into one post, but here we are.

No one is making any determinations on who deserves anything, or whose kids are better, or anything like that. Those are all figments of your imagination. This is solely an exercise in how a daycare will prioritize access to limited enrollment slots. Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it.

But, I notice among all the fiction and histrionics in your last post, you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? It's a straightforward yes or no question.

[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.

Not OP and in VA, not MD.
Our preschool was very clear that failure to pay full tuition was relinquishing your spot and you can get back on the wait list. My preschool provided some services - dropping off activity bags for my kid, having a teacher read him books in our driveway once a week, daily optional Zoom calls. My preschool also paid their staff the whole time so that we could start up quickly when allowed and have a school to come back to.

I know of a few preschools where parents paid 50-75%, but everyone paid the same. I also know of daycares where parents paid $0 and they will likely not have a daycare to return to and if they do, it will be mostly new teachers unless they can re-hire the old ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hard to believe you could fit so many straw men into one post, but here we are.

No one is making any determinations on who deserves anything, or whose kids are better, or anything like that. Those are all figments of your imagination. This is solely an exercise in how a daycare will prioritize access to limited enrollment slots. Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it.

But, I notice among all the fiction and histrionics in your last post, you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? It's a straightforward yes or no question.

What question do you mean? The question of whether it's unfair for a family who donates less to be picked over a family who donates more? I mean, obviously this is going to suck for someone, and I wouldn't judge them for feeling annoyed or frustrated about it. But no, I don't think it's unfair. It's very kind and noble of people to make charitable donations to their daycare (although let's be honest, for some people paying full tuition's worth of donations is less of a stretch and less generous than it might be for another family in different circumstances to chip in $100 or $200 a month, and I wouldn't consider the latter family less kind and generous.) But you make a donation because you can afford it and because you feel like it's the right thing to do, not because it's supposed to buy you any preference over anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hard to believe you could fit so many straw men into one post, but here we are.

No one is making any determinations on who deserves anything, or whose kids are better, or anything like that. Those are all figments of your imagination. This is solely an exercise in how a daycare will prioritize access to limited enrollment slots. Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it.

But, I notice among all the fiction and histrionics in your last post, you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? It's a straightforward yes or no question.

What question do you mean? The question of whether it's unfair for a family who donates less to be picked over a family who donates more? I mean, obviously this is going to suck for someone, and I wouldn't judge them for feeling annoyed or frustrated about it. But no, I don't think it's unfair. It's very kind and noble of people to make charitable donations to their daycare (although let's be honest, for some people paying full tuition's worth of donations is less of a stretch and less generous than it might be for another family in different circumstances to chip in $100 or $200 a month, and I wouldn't consider the latter family less kind and generous.) But you make a donation because you can afford it and because you feel like it's the right thing to do, not because it's supposed to buy you any preference over anyone else.

DP. You are making a lot out of "donation."

What if they asked people to pay what they thought was fair and could? (That's what my daycare did for the first month plus.) It isn't a "donation," but it functionally is the same in that some people are paying full, some a bit, and some not at all.

Would it then be fair to give priority to the people who paid more while closed? If yes, I think you are putting too much weight on the semantics of donation.

And again, if there weren't parents paying/donating (you can pick the verb), there would be no daycare for anyone to go back to.

[Anonymous]

There REALLY needs to be some consumer protection put in place for daycares and preschools.

1. Any preschool or daycare that continued to collect tuition without providing service needs to refund the parents that paid.

2. Preschools or daycares that set this up as a "donation" needs to provide the donating parents with the TAXID so that they can deduct the donation.

3. Any preschool or daycare that collected donations that they inferred or said would go to the teachers but kept all or a portion of the money need to be fined for fraud.

4. When preschools re-open they may need to re-establish their enrollments. There should be guidelines establishing that the business can use a first come first serve, long term customers first or lottery.

5. Preschools or daycares may find that they need to increase prices and/or decrease wages/salaries for employees making over minimum wage to remain profitable with lower mandated enrollments and potential risk for future closures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There REALLY needs to be some consumer protection put in place for daycares and preschools.

1. Any preschool or daycare that continued to collect tuition without providing service needs to refund the parents that paid.

2. Preschools or daycares that set this up as a "donation" needs to provide the donating parents with the TAXID so that they can deduct the donation.

3. Any preschool or daycare that collected donations that they inferred or said would go to the teachers but kept all or a portion of the money need to be fined for fraud.

4. When preschools re-open they may need to re-establish their enrollments. There should be guidelines establishing that the business can use a first come first serve, long term customers first or lottery.

5. Preschools or daycares may find that they need to increase prices and/or decrease wages/salaries for employees making over minimum wage to remain profitable with lower mandated enrollments and potential risk for future closures.

1. That would force almost all daycares to close. Also, people regularly pay to keep a daycare spot, whether at the start of enrollment or during extended absences for various reasons. This isn't that different.

2. That's not how that works. You can only deduct donations to charitable organizations. Most daycares are for profit businesses.

3. It will be very hard to make a fraud case out of an inference, but conceptually I have no issue with going after schools that knowingly lied.

4. I don't think it would be in anyone's interest to have the government dictate re-enrollment. The right answer may vary considerably from place to place based on varying circumstances. There is no rule that is going to make everyone happy, whether instituted by the government or the business.

5. Your probably right, but that will be very hard. Costs are already more than many can handle comfortably, and wages are already fairly low. Given that you recognize these VERY difficult economic circumstances facing daycares trying to stay in business, I don't understand how think they should be forced to refund any money collected the last few months. And, if they did that, how do you think they could reopen without astronomical tuition and no one making above minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will this affect infant spots? The CDC recommendation is no more than 10 kids per room, but in MD it is usually 6 (with 2 providers).

I haven't read the entire thread so maybe this has already been pointed out, but it's 10 people per room, not 10 kids. Staff, therapists, volunteers, etc are included in that count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

It is not bribery. It's charging for a service. The service is priority enrollment. It might suck, it might be unfair to people who wanted to pay but couldn't, but it's not illegal and it's definitely not bribery.

+1. The bribery poster has ZERO idea of the legal definition of bribery or what they are talking about. Please do not listen to them. Thinking something and having it be true are two different things.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. During the height of the pandemic, I know of two daycare classes/rooms that had exactly two kids in the class (essential worker kids). There's no way the state subsidy for two kids pays for a teacher, the room, keeping the lights on, box lunches and snacks for the kids, and cleaners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These are businesses, not nonprofit or governmental agencies! So many things in life are unfair or not right based on socioeconomic status and ability to pay. I agree it could be argued that this is unfair, but business is not here to be fair. Period. Not saying its right, but its the way it is. Its not illegal. Sure you can try to litigate it, but that's not going to get your kid a spot 3 months from now...... The government would need to step in and dictate some solution. NEVER will happen with current administration, they could give less than 1 **** about kids or middle class people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These are businesses, not nonprofit or governmental agencies! So many things in life are unfair or not right based on socioeconomic status and ability to pay. I agree it could be argued that this is unfair, but business is not here to be fair. Period. Not saying its right, but its the way it is. Its not illegal. Sure you can try to litigate it, but that's not going to get your kid a spot 3 months from now...... The government would need to step in and dictate some solution. NEVER will happen with current administration, they could give less than 1 **** about kids or middle class people.

Is there nothing on this board that won't be blamed on Trump?

Daycares are not, and have never been, regulated on a federal level. Rules are set on the state and at times local level. The idea that the federal government under any administration would dictate national rules on how to mandate daycares reopen and allocate scarce spots when opening at less than full capacity is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. During the height of the pandemic, I know of two daycare classes/rooms that had exactly two kids in the class (essential worker kids). There's no way the state subsidy for two kids pays for a teacher, the room, keeping the lights on, box lunches and snacks for the kids, and cleaners.

Yep. Our center normally serves 250 kids across 16 classrooms. We are essential workers, so our daughter has been going the entire time. At one point, they were serving maybe 15-20 kids across those 16 classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this affect infant spots? The CDC recommendation is no more than 10 kids per room, but in MD it is usually 6 (with 2 providers).

I haven't read the entire thread so maybe this has already been pointed out, but it's 10 people per room, not 10 kids. Staff, therapists, volunteers, etc are included in that count.

That should still work for infants. But I have no idea how the numbers will work more generally.

If you limit classes to only 7-8 kids/room, there is no way a daycare can afford to operate, especially because there will be increased costs with new PPE, added cleaning costs, and probably other things.

But, if they don't open at limited capacity, the willingness of parents to pay indefinitely for no service is going to lessen. With more limited money coming in, how are they going to make rent and other expenses they have even when closed.

I don't know the answer. They probably can't open at full strength for quite some time. But, without being able to do so, I don't know how they will be able to operate profitably. I thought previously that people saying there would be widespread closures, but now I am thinking that is more likely.