+1 OP, you can't be serious. Right? People have different priorities. Many people (myself included) actually don't think nannies are always the best childcare option. Some people feel that traveling with their kids and giving them life experiences is the most important thing. Some people think that owning a home and growing future wealth is more important to their children's long-term future than having a nanny now such that the parents will be able to pay to take care of themselves when they are older. Some people seriously can't afford a nanny, which can run $20k more than daycare if you only have one kid, so even if they do take one Hawaii vacation during the year, they still can't afford a nanny. Some people feel that daycare is safer because there are many people around and it is very regulated and they don't feel trusting enough of a single person alone taking care of their child. Some people feel that they would go insane if they didn't take vacations from life and choose sanity and rest for their children's sake rather than a nanny. Some people have parents who bought them a house and/or take them on vacation, so it may look like they're spending a lot of money to you, but they're really not. Etc. Get over yourself. |
I love this paragraph. Something about this whole premise of sacrificing to have a nanny, or being judged if you take vacation but have your child in daycare, rubs me the wrong way. Daycare can be a terrific childcare solution, as can a nanny, as can a SAHM, or any other combination. I don't judge others on their choices. I also don't martyr myself on the childcare issue. We are blessed to be able to afford a nanny. It was an affordable solution when we had multiple infants, now it's more of a luxury that we are blessed to be able to afford. But I won't sacrifice financial ease and peace of mind for that. If we had to seriously pennypinch then the stress of that would not be worth it - we'd find a more affordable form of childcare that didn't create financial stress. I don't see the nobility in straining one's financial resources. I don't even think that's wise. But if that works for your family great. Just don't sit there on your ivory tower judging others based on your assumptions. |
Yup - the question itself is bizarre. We are in an excellent preschool, one that some parents sacrifice for (and some kids receive financial aid to attend). We sacrificed for the first two years to afford a nanny, and then we sacrificed for preschool. We have been ecstatic about both. Some of my co-workers sacrifice to have a stay at home parent, others to have a nanny, others to afford a high quality preschool... |
I'mm the "different but equal" PP. I agreed with you, above poster, when I had one child. Now that I have 4, none of them school-aged yet, no one of them is getting that kind of obsessive, one-on-one attention anymore, and it's just fine. They have so much fun together that it more than makes up for the fact that my two-year-old takes a later nap than she would have had she been an only. Plenty of kids nap at daycare, btw. |
If your nanny isn't capable of handling four small children and teaching them, perhaps a different nanny would be a better solution. It's quite possible for all four children to be ready to read and capable of understanding adding and subtracting on one hand by the start of preschool, the nanny just has to be experienced with lots of young children. And frankly, if she can't establish a routine and stick to it, that's an issue. I worked 24/7 with 7 children, homeschooling all of them, it's possible, it just takes experience multi-tasking and a willingness to change something when it stops working. |
If the nanny is working across 4 kids, the difference between that and good preschool/daycare is minimal. |