Anonymous wrote:The wealthy have never been interested in raising their own children. I have seen some "moms" go happily back to work at 6 weeks postpartum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as "creating a social pod" ... here is the thing about "affluent women". We don't want to be bothered. We will pay for help but we don't want to coordinate with anybody, compromise on anything, or have anybody else making decision for us or our child.

Plus we love our children in dribs and drabs but don't want them underfoot. Even when we SAH, we have nanny's, swim team, tennis lessons, golf lessons, the club to keep them out of our hair.

We very much have the "we pay our taxes" attitude and want the government to do "the rest"... and supplement with tutors.

I could pay an out of work teacher but I would have to pay for 3, that is more expensive than a Big 3. Oh wait, my kids are at a Big 3, I pay them a ton, they can figure this out.

If you can't pluralize the word nanny I have a hard time believing you are an affluent woman.

^^^ See why we can't create a pod.

Could you imagine if I volunteered to do the English class for her kid. I'd hit her over the head with a Cab... very dry, but a California Cab, nothing too good.

You're a moron.

Okay Karen

DP. I think it is obvious that this is a sarcastic and fake post. No parent would say they love their child in “dribs and drabs”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never understood why wealthy people send their kids to public schools when they can afford private. They’ll spend big bucks on everything else but not education. To me, that’s backwards. I’m DCUM poor and I send my kid to private school. Aside from his health, nothing is more important than an education. You can’t go back and do it again. I won’t care too much if he has to do DL because his school did a great job last year especially last minute. They are paying teachers to come back a week early so they can have two weeks to prepare for DL since it will probably happen sometime this fall. I’m a public school teacher and they would never pay us a dime to do anything. They try to guilt us into take DL courses this summer for free. You get what you pay for. I think people are seeing this now.

Because while private schools can do some things better than public schools, there are some things that they cannot replicate.

I would never send my kids to private school. My brother is sending his kids to private school and is realizing the problem, but feels locked in.

Like what?

Upthread a poster said that school teaches children that they are not the center of the universe. Public schools teach that. Private schools teach the opposite.

Some people describe it as polish, as a kind of je ne sais quoi. It's a definite attitude that private school kids (many, not all) have that some parents want, some parents don't.

Anonymous wrote:UMC for us equals working our butts off to pay for a hefty mortgage in a great school system. I can’t quit my job for a year to homeschool or pay a magical tutor to come in and manage DL for three kids of very different ages and still pay the hefty mortgage (and property taxes). The math doesn’t work out.

Anonymous wrote:Do they NEED to be in school? No.

Are they in much better shape, intellectually and emotionally, when they are in school? Yes.

We are a very ordinary family ... no significant learning needs, both parents worked from home during the shutdown. The kids handled it OK. However, their situations ranged from almost no work for one child to complete, uncoordinated chaos for another child ... the teachers just piled busywork on top of busywork. It SUCKED. They all seemed pretty depressed and unmotivated.

I've always supported teachers, but their willingness to just give up and NOT TEACH right now is working my nerves. They don't want to go back ... but they're also not promising they will do any better than they did from March to June.

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP. One semester, or even one year or more of what is essentially home school is not detrimental to kids, especially those in stable, wealthy families. People homeschool kids. This is okay. They will be okay. Would you rather them be home schooled for a year or get coronavirus and be one of the unlucky ones? We’re staying home for now and then will reassess.

For those of us who have the means to keep our kids home and do not, I’m not sure I could stomach something happening to my child that I could have tried harder to prevent.

I’ve been reading these articles about how kids are low transmitters, but that’s not what my friends in the urgent care field are saying. They’re saying they’re starting to see more and more kids come in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the middle of a growing pandemic, why do your kids "need to be in school" this fall? One of my former classmates just posted this and several people on this forum have done so as well. She is a wealthy attorney, member of a country club etc. She has the means to hire a caregiver to supplement distance learning and plenty of friends that she could set up a social pod with for her kids to socialize. Why do her kids "need to be in school" to the detriment of public health? Plenty of people are saving money now due to not having to commute, not having to pay for activities, not shopping and buying clothes, eating out less etc. Why can't they hire a caregiver to help their kids with distance learning? I understand that this is out of the price range for many, but not sure why so many affluent people in this area are saying their kids "need to be in school."

Assuming this is a serious question posed by an even half-way reasonable person (not sure that is the case), I will attempt to provide OP with an answer that she can comprehend. If you're a parent yourself (doubtful, just by the question), you know that your kids benefit from "being in school" in myriad ways that go far beyond the actual academic program.

School teaches kids to socialize. School teaches kids to function in groups, and around adults that are not their parents. School gives kids their first taste of independence. School challenges kids, allows them to fail and supports them as they pick themselves up again and move on. School provides a wealth of opportunities that are impossible to replicate through home distance learning, such as art, chorus groups, band, sports teams, physical education, assemblies, etc. School teaches kids that they are not in fact the center of the universe, which is often a revelation. School provides access to friends, potential friends and those we have to work harder to like. School is fun, hard, boring and exciting, often all in the same day, which is an important concept for kids to learn to deal with. School requires a level of behavior and self-discipline that is not required if one is sitting on one's own sofa in one's pajamas, eating cheetos while trying to follow a math class. School is a kid's first community. School provides an opportunity to be around other people's germs and get sick, thus building up immunity. School provides an opportunity to get hurt at recess, which teaches kids that yes, they can overcome pain. School provides access to supplemental services that are often essential, such as counseling. School provides a rhythm, a routine, a reason to get up and get dressed every morning. It is truly a child's purpose in life.

So yes, OP, as you wring your hands over the severity of this pandemic which, whose effect on children, BTW, is almost nil - I will side with the Academy of Pedetrics - you know, the experts, who contend that ALL children -- even wealthy little Biff and Bo -- NEED to be in school.

You have, in fact, sent your kids to school previously right? So they should have experienced all of these things. Is one more year with you, distance learning, a caregiver, and a social pod REALLY going to undo all of the socialization your kids for the past however many years? If your children don’t listen to you, that’s a parenting issue and frankly you shouldn’t be putting that on the school anyway. That’s akin to the parents who send their preschoolers to school in pajamas because they cannot get them dressed but somehow the teacher can. If your kid isn’t listening to your hired caregiver, guess what, they are probably not listening to their teacher either.

You’re not a parent are you? If you were you’d know that children are not mini adults. They are constantly growing and developing. Yes. Yes absolutely a year away from school would be extremely detrimental to any child. But you don’t care, do you?

Anonymous wrote:My kids aren’t affluent. I am, my husband somewhat is.

Anonymous wrote:You people claiming that governesses are the way to go and the British were fine or whatever are insane. Have you ever read any history of the world at all? Do you think the world was served well by having wealthy British children isolated from poorer peers over the course of British history?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it a relatively recent development for the children of the wealthy to be housed in schools for much of the day? Children used to be educated at home without notably inferior mental health outcomes.

I’ve thought about this before, in the context of 19th century British fiction. The guys in Austen novels make a lot more sense if you think about how poorly socialized people were back then!