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

[Anonymous]

What SHOULD life look like?

One parent in every family SAH?
Employ full time childcare as standby, even when the kids are out of the house for 6+ hours?

This saying drives me NUTS so I'm trying to understand it more.
Thanks

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand it either. They’re probably the same ones that I think you should have 15 unique kinds of back up care.

[Anonymous]

I think that it comes from this idea that teachers are college educated professionals and not babysitters, so saying school is childcare is pejorative.

It makes me crazy too, OP. It's factual. That's the way the entire public school institution is arranged. It's childcare AND education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that it comes from this idea that teachers are college educated professionals and not babysitters, so saying school is childcare is pejorative.

It makes me crazy too, OP. It's factual. That's the way the entire public school institution is arranged. It's childcare AND education.

+100

[Anonymous]

Those comments totally rub me the wrong way, too! I liked this article fwiw.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/parenting/schools-day-care-children-divide.html

[Anonymous]

Right. If it really isn't childcare, then parents should have to attend school with their kids to help supervise them.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

It's like saying my job is supposed to be my passion and not a way to make money.

[Anonymous]

Drives me crazy too. The childcare element is not primary but for kids under 12, having them in school enables two earner households and pretty much what our society is built on. Otherwise we would have one SAH parent until the kids are 12 and/or still live in multi generational households so older relatives and one aunt or whatvwr can take care of all the kids while others work. That's not the case anymore.

[Anonymous]

I think it is disingenuous to act like that’s not what it has evolved to at this point, also.

[Anonymous]

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.

The school being open fall to spring is also an old concept when you needed kids at home for harvest in summer. That's completely moot now for 90% or more of the population and should be revisited. Year round school for everyone with longer breaks to provide actual breaks and if colleges have the same schedule there will be camps etc for those that need the childcare during breaks.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

While I certainly don't disagree that there's a need for a broader discussion about childcare, I am getting a little lost in your argument as it relates to schools. You seem to be trying to separate school from child care needs. I think it's rather clear that school would be a fundamental component of any national/state child care policy strategy. For about 180 days a year, you already know where and how school-age children will be cared for- you'd obviously build on that.

Whether child care is or isn't a primary purpose of schools is moot. It obviously functionally plays the role of child care, and a huge part of our society and economy is based on that assumption.