Children should start school at two years old!

This has been all over the news this past 24 hours.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/children-should-start-school-at-two-years-old-study/

I don't like this at all. But, to be completely fair, there ARE some pros to the idea.

1. It levels the playing field between rich and poor. Currently the wealthy have access to much better quality childcare than middle class or poor parents. Every "nice" (read, expensive) daycare promotes their elaborate "early education" programs. Poor kids get warehoused or dumped on dodgy home caregivers (yes, there's excellent ones, but I've also seen some who really shouldn't be in the business).

2. Free public daycare (please don't put a wig on a pig and tell me it's a pony!) would be a life-saver for the working poor, especially single parents.

3. Many alternative and private schools, including Montessori, start at age 2.

4. More choice is always good.

What this won't do:

1. Create jobs. For every teacher hired, there's a babysitter fired. It's going to have a horrible impact on local daycare centers, too.

2. Fully fill the child-care gap. Public school is a 9 to 3 deal. Working parents will still have to pay for after-care.

3. Ensure a generation of highly educated, well-adjusted children. Study after study has been done on daycare kids versus home-reared kids. By and large, there's no significant difference in their long term outcome. Even highly academic daycares result in only a short-term boost to the children's learning, which vanishes by Grade 5. Kids are resilient. Public school for toddlers will neither destroy a generation or save it.

What this might mean:

1. Fewer support programs for stay-at-home moms as the demand for them drops, like library times and non-profit drop-ins.

2. A "normalization" of putting toddlers in care, so that parents who would otherwise stay home with their children won't even think twice about sending their toddler to school. They'll naturally want them to get the "best start". It'll become the new normal, like 4yo kindergarten is here.

3. A common belief that toddlers need formal education.

4. An influx of parents of toddlers in the local homeschool groups, all of them convinced they're "homeschooling", simply because they've chosen to stay home with their two year old. :lol:

 

Oh. My. Word! NO!!!

Public schools aren't bad enough at institutionalizing children, they want to start even earlier??? Next they'll be meeting you at the hospital to take them away from you!

 

Cradle-to-grave mentality.

 

Ugh, a big fat dislike.

 

Yikes. It's nauseating to think it may go through in some lame attempt to reduce the cost of childcare for working families. I mean what about the nuturing the child is being deprived from a loving home environment???

 

OTOH, I've been in some of the homes the kids come from to public schools, and I hate to say it, but some kids would be better off institutionalized. Not because they're being mistreated, but because institutionalized care would be better than the benign neglect they get at home for their first 4 years. Some of these mamas don't know basic stuff, like the fact that you're SUPPOSED to play with your babies and talk to them, not just feed, bathe, dress 'em, and stick 'em in a crib/playpen until they're walking, then let 'em outside until they're 4, then send 'em to preschool.

 

At least if they're letting them outside, they're better off than the ones that get strapped into car seats and parked in front of the TV to "keep them out of trouble". Lots of effort has gone into providing free education programs for new parents, but people have to be interested in learning. And too many just aren't.

Another problem is, many perfectly loving families just don't have the option of staying home with their families. I consider myself very privileged to have been able to choose to become a stay-at-home mom and homeschooler. But if my husband had died (he actually almost did, when my son was a baby!) or left me when my children were young, they would have had to go into daycare. And I would have been grateful for a standardized, affordable system.

 

I don't believe that a "standardized, affordable system" can exist. No more than you would call public school "standardized" or "affordable". I believe that the MAJORITY of working moms do so because they've been sold a lie that they MUST work, that the system knows better than they do how to take care of their children. Yes, there are some that MUST work, but they are few and far between. But once upon a time, when there were situations such as a woman left with young children, she would often have family to step in and help. Now, most women on their own with young children are that way by choice.

 

@Jackie hear hear! I just got an earful for posting this on FB from my mother who made me mad saying 'Not all women have the luxury of staying at home.' Now I don't know about the rest of you but I hardly think it a luxury when hubby is unemployed for months and we have no income. Or when he is so tired from working three jobs to make ends meet because he feels its his role as provider. I also don't think the mountain of work I have to do because I don't have enough money for a maid like other women is a luxury. I also don't think having kids running around screaming and yelling on a bad day as being a luxury. Nor do I think having the majority of working women looking down their noses at me for being a stay at home mom being a luxury either. Since when did making a lifestyle choice become a luxury???? Sorry for the rant ladies. Just curious do you feel it's a luxury to stay at home or a decision that was made in your marriage and hasn't always been easy.

 

Did you know that in 1945 33.2 percent of all women were employed? That's a LOT of women! Almost all were supporting families, even if they weren't mothers themselves.

I've seen vintage photos of young children being left tied to a leash in their front yards, back in the 30's, because there mothers had to work. I've read accounts of seven year olds preparing dinner for the family, because they were the first ones home from school to an empty house. When the Triangle Shirtwaist Garment Factory burned to the ground in 1911, 146 garment workers, all women, died. Most were girls between the ages of 14 and 23 - working to support their families, as their mothers couldn't (most factories fired women when they got married, and taking in washing and mending only gets you so far). Girls would often drop out of school in order to work. The sooner they could support their families and get food on the table, the better.

Before the 50's gave us the ideal of the stay-at-home mom, most poor women worked. Even during the 50's, most poor women worked and felt guilty about it. Every woman in my family tree, except my grandma and me, worked. All of them worked by necessity, and not because they were "sold a bill of goods". (And frankly my grandmother should have worked - she was bored and bitter in the life of a proper 50's wife, and her children suffered for it.)

Yes, women in comfortable circumstances have a choice. But there are tens of thousands who don't.

 

I'm sorry, I really don't buy it! Yes, there have always been women who had to work to even survive. There always will be. But TODAY the majority of working mothers work BY CHOICE. Staying at home is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, as Northernmomma said.

You want to stay home and raise your kids?

1) Don't jump in bed with every guy who comes along. Try doing it the old-fashioned way...getting married FIRST, in a marriage where divorce isn't even a consideration.

2) Realize that you can survive without the very best of everything, or you don't "deserve" the most expensive, or a "date night" once a week (Heck! Once a MONTH!) is a luxury.

3) Don't accept that YOU are the center of the universe! Most women CANNOT "have it all"...family AND carreer...and not get burned out somewhere. Why do you think YOU are Superwoman? Stop listening to people who tell you that staying home is an inferior calling.

4) Realize that there's nothing inferior or "unfulfilling" about bringing up well-rounded, well-behaved children.

 

Whoa... do you know people with maids? :shock:

I do think I live in luxury, because I don't have to work outside the home. I can choose to work here, and I really enjoy it. But I sure as heck couldn't afford a maid!

My husband considers it a luxury to come home to a hot meal every night. He considers it a luxury when I pack his lunches for him. He considers it a luxury not to have to worry about the running of the household, to know that I've got it all under control. He's grateful we can afford to have me do this. He knows that if I was working, he'd have to start pulling his weight at home.

We both acknowledge there are sacrifices. Not so many paid lessons for the kids. A second-hand car (or no car, for awhile). Few vacations. Cheap furniture. But these are small things, compared to the relaxed, unhurried, mostly stress-free lifestyle we're blessed with. We feel wealthy.

And honestly, I'd rather work than lose our house. I appreciate my lifestyle, but I won't go down in flames trying to maintain it at all cost. If my husband died, I'd get a job. If he lost his job, or lost his mind, or decided God was calling him to become an itinerant preacher, I'd get a job. I have children to support and it's my job to ensure that they have food on the table and a roof over our heads.

I'm grateful every day to have had a choice. I'm also grateful that if my daughter does become the doctor she's wanted to be since she was four, she won't have to choose between that and having children. If she becomes a SAHM, it'll be because she wants to be one, not because society says moms can't work.

 

I agree with all of this. None of it is bad advice. However, I know too many people living paycheck to paycheck who certainly don't get "date night" every week or anything of the sort. Maybe I just know poorer people than you?

And as for "having it all" - why should I tell my daughter that if she wants to be a doctor, then she has to give up on ever having children of her own? Or if she has children, then she can't be a doctor. Is that fair? We joke about finding her a "house husband", but the reality is, they're a rare breed. Most likely, she'll work. And not because she's selfish or thinks there's something "inferior" about the way she was raised, but because since she was four years old there's only two things she's ever wanted in life. To practice medicine, and to have children of her own. She's even talking about going into the military, because they offer the best maternity benefits and most time off, and most family support, of any of the choices out there.

 

No, I doubt you know poorer people than I do. I attend a mission church in the inner city. We have a large number of homeless attending.

My daughter is going to college next year. She's studying to be an engineer. And I hope she doesn't "waste" that college education we're planning on her getting. But today's women are NOT invincible! I know I had my hands full working full-time, dealing with two step-sons and a baby. And I was a teacher, so I was off in the summer. There are only so many hours in a day; something somewhere has to give. And it tends to be either your job or your family.

 

Then I'm afraid I don't understand... do you believe the women at the mission are being selfish if they choose to work to support their families?

If it's a "waste" for your daughter to stay home and raise her kids instead of working as an engineer after she graduates, would you prefer she never had any children at all? Or would you have preferred she never went to university?

FWIW, I do agree that something often has to give. I've often said I stay home because I can only do one thing well at a time. But that said, I know working mums with wonderful children. If my daughter wants to practice medicine and have children, I'll do my best to support her and her partner.

Here's where I'm coming from: My mother married my father fully intending to be the best wife and mother she could possibly be. My father began an affair with my mother's best friend, and in short order the two of them abandoned my mother with me. My mother was utterly blindsided by this - she never saw it coming. And suddenly, she was on her own with a toddler to support. My father never sent her more than 100 dollars a month.

My mother was too proud to go on welfare, though people told her to do it. She thought it was wrong to take money from the state when she was healthy enough to work and support us both. And believe me, she worked hard!

I think I turned out okay. I just wish it'd been easier for my mom.

 

What I'm saying is that I believe that many (most?) of women working today are doing so out of CHOICE. They believe they have no other option. And, for most of them, that is a lie. Yes, there are working mothers that do a good job raising kids. My mom worked, and she did a fine job. But most believe the lie that they MUST work. I read a book a good number of years ago called "Women Leaving the Workplace". One thing it talked about was how very little of a second paycheck most women actually bring home. The largest chunk of it is spent on child care.

Which brings us back to the original topic. 2yo's DO NOT BELONG IN PRESCHOOL!!!

 

No argument there! :lol:

 

One local private school here has a 2 yr old class. It is crazy!! from 8-11:30 they do "school" in the lunch room! There obviously isn't enough room so why have the class!? But the most insane part is parents PAY for that! 2 year olds should be at home playing with toys, not in some classroom!

 

I'm with Jackie. It's one thing to be seriously broke and need to work, but the fact is, most people assume that you MUST have two people working to survive. They then do not entertain any other option. Closemindedness makes me CRAZY. Just like the fact that people assume I sit at home on my butt watching TV all day as a stay at home mom (more when my kids were toddlers than when I became a homeschooling mom). When my husband was making $27k a year and we had two kids? That's when I was super couponing and feeding us all+diapers+HBA for under a hundred dollars a month, and stretching the budget.

People think satellite and HD TV and a huge house and two new carpayments is a necessity that "forces" them to work, when the fact is, in many - not ALL but many - cases, cutting a number of the frills would allow them to stay home - if that is what they really wanted.

When I went through a divorce and became a single mom, a friend of mine told me there was no way I could stay home with my children and keep homeschooling, I needed to "grow up", put them in public school, and go get a "real" job paying $25-30k a year.

I told them exactly where they could go, and found a job that I could do from home - that I actually happen to love and is perfect for me - and a year and a half later, I'm seriously pro at it.

People whining about how they are "forced" to do something, while I'm "priviliged" make me want to smack them with their iphone and ipad and idontknowwhatelse.

/soapbox

 

I think absolutely it is a luxury to stay home with your kids instead of working full time! No question about that. It's something I try to appreciate everyday, even though it is tough sometimes.

I do agree that in many families, women wouldn't "have to" work in order to feed, clothe, and shelter their children, IF their lifestyles underwent quite the change. I work 2 days per week because we enjoy having the income and I enjoy working. If I stayed home full-time, our budget and habits would have to change dramatically and honestly, I like it the way it is! I enjoy all the 'extras' we can afford, though we could certainly survive with less.

Quite frankly, luxuries surround us all, homeschoolers or working parents or the mix. A TV by itself, without satellite channels is a luxury. A home phone, even without a cell phone too, is a luxury. Ramen noodles are a luxury. A working car is a luxury. A can of soda is a luxury. We are all richly blessed.

And on the original topic, I don't think 2 yr olds should be in school! =)