# Sending babies/toddlers to preschool: a new trend?



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

So, just curious: Is it the "thing" nowadays to send children as young as 12 or 18 months to preschool?

I am flabbergasted at all these stay-at-home moms I'm running into IRL who think that they are giving their babies an advantage by sending them to preschool before they're even 2! Some think that they have let their children fall behind if they weren't in preschool by 3!

After staying home with my first 2 kids, I went back to work full time when my DD was 18 months and I put her in a preschool. She has liked it a lot. I'm happy with it and I think it is a great place for her. I would even venture to say that she is learning a lot (it is an awesome Montessori preschool.) But, were I not working, I would never have dreamed of putting her in school before age 3. Am I just an old fogey with an outdated mentality? Is this really the new normal?

Is there some new research out that demonstrates the benefits of preschool for 1-2 year olds that I just haven't heard about?


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

I send my 16 m.o. to preschool on the same schedule as her 4 y.o. sister, three mornings a week, but I really do think that any notion of measurable "benefit" to the toddler themselves is total hogwash in most cases. It may well benefit the at-home parent - I think the respite makes me a more patient and engaged caregiver. In our case, it most certainly benefits my homeschooled first grader who gets some blocks of peace and quiet to do seat work. I am a supporter of preschool/play school experience in early childhood when finances allow, but also a little freaked out at the idea that it's going to become a must-do for parents who want their children to succeed in life. My toddler would develop just fine if we lived on an isolated farm, or on board a ship, or in a freaking CAVE. The parental and sibling bonds really are enough at this age.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

ITA with you, Smithie, on the benefits for the mom. I never had a break with my older 2 kids and it was so hard. It would have been a welcome relief to have had a trusted caregiver in a safe place for a couple mornings a week.
It's the idea that the babies will fall behind without it that puzzles me.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I agree that sending a toddler (or preschooler) to school is generally more for the parent's benefit. Totally. Which, isn't a bad thing! I also don't think kids who wait until they are older to start school are necessarily at a disadvantage. My DS that started school at 4.5 and only went for half a year (then we moved, and he didn't go back to school until kindergarten) is a super bright kid. He is in in 2nd grade now and far ahead of his peers in most areas. It really depends on the kid, too. My youngest is 3 and just started Montessori - I will be interested to see how he does in the years to come.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

I went to a playschool at 18 months. So I don't know how new it is.

In my state, preschools can only accept kids at 2 years 9 months. There are a lot of in-home playschools that are licensed as daycares that take 2 year olds. It's usually just one day a week and they do some craft projects and sing some songs. State licensing for in-home daycare requires a 1:6 adult child ratio, and I don't know of any that have helpers so all the ones I know of are max 6 kids at a time. Many of my friends used them, and had good experiences. I sent my DD to a toddler Montessori program when she was a bit over 2, but it's the only preschool I know of around here that takes kids that young (they start at 18 months). It gave me a break, and she really enjoyed it.

I don't know of any preschools that take 12 month olds, though.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

My mom works in an early childhood development center, and they have been steadily increasing enrollment all around, but this year they saw a huge influx of parents wanting to get in the 2YO program. They are maxed out, with many kids on the waitlist.

My mom doesn't know what to think. She said more parents than ever wanted to know what exactly the "curriculum" would be for their 2YO, as in "you will be teaching them the ABCs, right?"

And, no, I don't think there are any studies out there that have shown benifits to starting preshool early.

It breaks my heart when my mom describes peeling each crying child away from their mother everyday to fingerpaint and sing songs. My mom says that with the 2s, they spend about 20 minutes getting everyone to stop crying, 45 minutes changing each of the kids' diapers, and it takes about 10 minutes to put their coats on for recess in the winter. Although, when everyone stops crying and they are not taking care of the babies, it sounds like they are having a lot of fun.

FWIW I am a SAHM of one 2YO and I feel an enormous amount of pressure to put DD in more activities including preschool, esp from my ILs who live in NYC. My instinct is to hold her close and closer.


----------



## mamakaikai (Apr 17, 2009)

I have no idea if there is any greater benefit to preschool than there is to being home or in daycare. But, as a sahm, I did consider putting my 2 yr old in preschool. I didn't end up doing it because I felt she was too young and I did not feel it was the best choice so I kept her home full time and found some other activities to do.

But the reason I considered it was that she could have a bit more socializing time with peers. I also thought she would really enjoy and thrive on the structured activities (crafts, story time with friends etc). Also, I get NO time to myself and haven't even been on a date with dp in 2.5 yrs and I was pregnant with my second when I considered it and also worried about how I would handle 2 kids under 2.5 years....

I could have used the help and thought 2 mornings in preschool would be better than daycare or a crazy sleep deprived negligent mother!! BUt we managed and I won't reconsider preschool until she is 3. That said, I plan on homeschooling.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
My mom works in an early childhood development center, and they have been steadily increasing enrollment all around, but this year they saw a huge influx of parents wanting to get in the 2YO program. They are maxed out, with many kids on the waitlist.

My mom doesn't know what to think. She said more parents than ever wanted to know what exactly the "curriculum" would be for their 2YO, as in "you will be teaching them the ABCs, right?"

And, no, I don't think there are any studies out there that have shown benifits to starting preshool early.

It breaks my heart when my mom describes peeling each crying child away from their mother everyday to fingerpaint and sing songs. My mom says that with the 2s, they spend about 20 minutes getting everyone to stop crying, 45 minutes changing each of the kids' diapers, and it takes about 10 minutes to put their coats on for recess in the winter. Although, when everyone stops crying and they are not taking care of the babies, it sounds like they are having a lot of fun.

FWIW I am a SAHM of one 2YO and I feel an enormous amount of pressure to put DD in more activities including preschool, esp from my ILs who live in NYC. My instinct is to hold her close and closer.

Wow. That sounds really awful. At my DD's 2s program, I think there was only 1 boy who had problems with separation after the first few weeks. And his parents worked, so she didn't have a choice. After the first week, where separation was tough because she had never been apart from me, DD didn't even turn around when she shouted "bye momma!" to run off to play with her friends. It was a Montessori program, so they also made the kids put on their own coats... which definitely made my life easier when she brought that skill home!

What do you think your mom's place is dong that there are such extreme separation issues? It's so interesting that they have that problem to that extent. 2 year olds with working parents get dropped off at daycare all the time, and children that age seem plenty happy in the babysitting room at my gym. It's kind of horrifying that her school had such a consistent problem with separation.


----------



## QuestionGal (Feb 19, 2006)

I put DS in Mother's Day Out two days a week at 1 year. I freely admit I did it for my benefit, at a year I don't know that he learned anything there that he wouldn't have learned at home with me. BUT *I* needed the break. Those few hours were PRECIOUS to me. It allowed me to breathe and begin finding myself again and be a better mother, wife, friend, etc. I caught alot of flack from friends IRL who were shocked at the decision, at the end of the day it didn't matter what THEY thought. We had to do what was best for our family and what anyone else thought just didn't matter.

DS is now 3 and still attends the same MDO program, now 3x a week. He HAS learned so many new things and is able to do things that we just couldn't/wouldn't think to do at home. He's also made friends, his OWN friends, is learning how to interact with other kids, and is adapting to the care taking provided by other adults.

the teachers at MDO have become part of our "village" and it's something I am very grateful for.

ETA: before having DS I thought I'd never put him in that type of situation until 4 or 5. But that was before, the reality of DS and our situation (no family/limited support network) was completely different than I'd expected.


----------



## c'est moi (Sep 8, 2009)

maybe i'm just out of touch, but i consider kindergarten what you go to when you're 5. it's your first required exploration into "what is school?" preschool is the optional thing parents send their children to at 4, maybe even 3 years old. but really it's mostly just playing. anything before the age of 3 is just a care provider.

i guess i just assumed that any place that called themselves a "school" was just doing so for marketing appeal???


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
Wow. That sounds really awful. At my DD's 2s program, I think there was only 1 boy who had problems with separation after the first few weeks. And his parents worked, so she didn't have a choice. After the first week, where separation was tough because she had never been apart from me, DD didn't even turn around when she shouted "bye momma!" to run off to play with her friends. It was a Montessori program, so they also made the kids put on their own coats... which definitely made my life easier when she brought that skill home!

What do you think your mom's place is dong that there are such extreme separation issues? It's so interesting that they have that problem to that extent. 2 year olds with working parents get dropped off at daycare all the time, and children that age seem plenty happy in the babysitting room at my gym. It's kind of horrifying that her school had such a consistent problem with separation.


I should say that this is not a montessori but a very highly regarded place in a not so crunchy area. Also, they have been in session for 2 weeks now. I dunno, my mom says that they are just so young this year. Also, they are supposed to have 10 spots, but the director gave them 12 because there was just so much demand. My mom has one aide. So they are 2 on 12.

My mom has said in the past that the crying is just contagious. Maybe only 3 or 4 are crying at first, maybe 1 stops, but then another one, who was fine starts crying. She does believe in the whole rip the baby away and redirect theory which doesn't jibe with me. It is rough right now, but I know it gets better as the year goes on, I am just going by what my mom is talking about right now.

She also has told me that almost all the parents _claim_ that their kids _are_ potty-trained and bring them in pullups, which makes it twice as hard to get the baby cleaned when they have an 'accident', and it seems the setting brings out the poop in all of them







. On one day my mom said, only 1 is _really_ potty trained in a class of 12.

With having a 2YO now, I pay a lot more attention to my mom's stories. I have to admit sometimes I wish my DD was in her class. The do the sweetest activities, and my mom is the most loving caring person ever.


----------



## OkiMom (Nov 21, 2007)

Here its common to send children to preschool at 18 months and when I say school I mean a school type setting. From what Ive been told between 18 months and 24 months it can be up to 2 hours/3 days per week and they concentrate on sitting still (not a skill I think my 1 1/2 year old needs to learn per say) and potty training (which is why a LOT of parents send their kids to the school, so they don't have to deal with the initial potty training). After that they do "lesson" time which from what I told is language (its usually a Japanese school and they teach the children Japanese), alphabet, numbers, with a little art and craft thrown in. They do get 1-2 recesses. The times are usually 4-5 hours 2-3 times a week or more if you want it.

Personally I thought about sending my first when I had my second mostly from pure exhausion. My first is very high energy and I love her but she can be very draining. I ended up not because one I thought it might build resentment (she would tie the school to her sister) and two it would be tiring getting her ready, walking her to school (we only have one car so I would have had to walk her there and walk her home), getting her to stay at the school (she doesn't like strangers so this would have to repeat any time someone new started working there) and then walking home just to walk back again. It just wouldn't have made life any easier.


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

I sent my 2 year old to our Montessori. I spent a good few nights crying about it too before we sent him off, thinking I was a failure as a SAHM not being able to help him through this problem and how awful I was sending my non verbal child to preschool. And this was a school I knew and loved and trusted, having my oldest attending there for a year. Part of the reason why we sent him at two was that he was going to be enrolled in our Montessori in September, but we (Parents, teacher, language pathologist and Directress) thought that it might be too much change for him at that point as we were welcoming a new baby at the end of August. The speech pathologist also believed that it would help with his language. The other part, yes was for my benefit as I was going through a difficult pregnancy. He spent the first two weeks crying, I waited while he was carried in and listened for the minute he crossed the corner into his classroom and couldn't see me, he stopped crying. After two weeks, he marched in confidently and nowadays he barely remembers to give me a kiss. Just the skills they worked on with him and his sense of accomplishment (one of his first phrases was "I did it!" followed closely by "I do it!") helped his confidence tenfold and the language seemed to follow behind.

In the 6 months he's been there, he's gone from pretty much no vocabulary, frequent frustration temper tantrums and absolutely no confidence except at home, to an extremely confident, cheerful and very chatty little guy who was just yesterday discharged from speech pathology, "happily and enthusiastically", which I owe in a big part to his teachers and school. So while I got to spend part of my pregnancy with my feet up, the benefits to DS2 have been immeasurable and we still cannot believe the change in him. Which reminds me, I will be writing a letter to the staff at our school to update and thank them.


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

DS started at Montessori when he was 2.

For us it was all about the socialization. Prior to that we had done several of the mommy and me classes at the park district so that he could be around other kids but by 2 he was getting a bit bored there. I was having zero luck finding a mom's play group. So we started at Montessori with a mommy and me class and he loved it. Also, by getting in then you are a returning student and don't have to deal with the mad rush and waiting lists for the 3 yr olds.









He never cried. Bizarre. We got there the first day and I just could.not do the drop off thing so I walked him in. He immediately went to play and ignored me. I remember one morning he did cry. They called me about 3 minutes later to let me know he was happily playing. It did great things for his socialization and his independence. And it gave me just a little bit of alone time which was much needed.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I think what's new is calling daycare "preschool".







Around here, kids start going to "school" at 6 weeks old. That's what they call my nephew's daycare.


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

I hear that as well, "school" for a 8 month old. I am not a big fan of early school for my family, if I had a less flexible work schedule then I'm sure I might feel differently. I believe that children have years ahead of them to sit in a classroom, and the schools that we have tried have been very fun and amazing programs. DD1 attempted preschool for one month at age 4 and then she didn't go back until 1st grade because I am working more, I enrolled DD2 this fall in preschool for 2 days a week. She turns 4 next month and it is too early for me, I have spent the last 6 months talking myself into it and the decision is still not sitting well with me. I'm giving it through the end of the month and then I am leaning towards abandoning preschool once again.


----------



## tinuviel_k (Apr 29, 2004)

In my area "preschool" for the under-three-years-old crowd is just a fancy term for daycare, and is designed to hook parents who want to think their babies will be getting an early education instead of just care.
A while back I applied to work at a childcare center, and they were very insistent that their program be called preschool. Um... I was applying to work in the infant room! 2 months to 12 months old.The woman in charge was very careful to ask if I had experience designing a curriculum for that age group. It was all I could do to keep from laughing in her face. Like infants need a lesson plan! What ever happened to letting babies just be babies?!


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 

What do you think your mom's place is dong that there are such extreme separation issues? It's so interesting that they have that problem to that extent. 2 year olds with working parents get dropped off at daycare all the time, and children that age seem plenty happy in the babysitting room at my gym. It's kind of horrifying that her school had such a consistent problem with separation.

My 2 year olds (I've had two so far) were awful at seperations. I just think some kids are, you know?


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *c'est moi* 
maybe i'm just out of touch, but i consider kindergarten what you go to when you're 5. it's your first required exploration into "what is school?" preschool is the optional thing parents send their children to at 4, maybe even 3 years old.

In my state, there is state-funded universal pre-k. What it has done in effect has lowered the start school age to 4. Kids that start kindy are expected to know the "group rules", so to speak. How to sit in a circle, stand in line, not cry for your mama, stuff like that. And, pre-k classes are increasingly academic, as well. You have to really, really hunt for one that is play based.


----------



## mrspineau (Jan 15, 2008)

We were planning on putting our 2 1/2 yr old into montessori this fall. We did think it would benefit him a lot, specifically because he is very advanced for his age and we thought that the oppourtunity to learn in that type of environment with children of different ages would only help him develop his love of learning. And the particular learning materials they have there we thought he would really take to. But, we are expecting a baby any day now and we decided not to put him into it because we dont want him to feel like he's being sent away because of the new baby, or feel like the change is in any way related. So we might put him in next year instead in the spring, or maybe in the fall. I think it would be a great chance for him to make friends too, as we don't have any playgroups where I live and I don't have a lot of friends with kids his age.


----------



## K1329 (Apr 6, 2009)

IMO, it reallly depends on the individual child and the school they attend. Dd started preschool at 3. She loved it so much we started ds right before his second birthday at a playbased preschool - no lessons. He loves it! He does fun activities, has caring, wonderful teachers, and gets to go to school like his big sis! He had no separation issues - but I did see a few kids crying the first week. For us, it works. If he had shown any signs of not being ready, we would have waited.


----------



## mrsdewees (Apr 18, 2010)

My 4-year-old isn't even in pre-school yet :-/ I am still undecided about whether I am going to homeschool or send her to school next year - and, apparently, I'm holding it off until the last minute. That being said, I want to enjoy my kids as long as possible. If she's going to start school, I want to keep her home with me until she's 5. Maybe I'm crazy though


----------



## Baby_Cakes (Jan 14, 2008)

I'll admit I got caught up in this and started looking at "preschools" when DD was around 18 mo. I thought I had to send her, that it was what was done. When I went to tour a school, I was filled with this overwhelming feeling of, "Why do I need to send her here? I'm home with her. I do art projects with her. I read with her. We watch movies together. We dance. We sing. We go for walks. We play outside."

I left scratching my head.

The 3-4 year old room was neat. They had computers and structure. It felt and looked more what I used to think of when I thought of preschool. We are definitely waiting until at least that age to send DD.


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

Here Preschool starts 2 yrs prior to Kindergarten and the child must be out of diapers ( no pullups) before that it is designated as daycare.

We do preschool 2 or 3 mornings a week at 3 and 5 mornings a week at 4. They have a moms day out program that starts at 12 months but because its only one day a week it doesnt have to be licensed by the state -- im not willing to do that.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Maybe I am completely out of touch but I have never heard of sending an 18month old to preschool and frankly the thought of leaving my 19month dd with anyone beside family that much makes me totally
















I understand why some moms might want a break but why not just call it what it is, day care. I feel like they are trying to justify why it's so great for the kids when in reality its just for the mom. Because most sahm wouldn't put a child in day care, but preschool, oh that's different.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

I take DD to preschool but here it's not until 3yo. It is not for me at all. 2 hours is not a break, it's too short to do much when you have to add in travel time--and I picked a school as close as I could to our house to reduce travel time. In fact, I don't go home, I pack my laptop and work at a local coffee shop, which is nice, but not why I send her to preschool.

I was just telling DH today that I hope DD really enjoys it b/c it's expensive, it's a hassle (our days start so early.) She's well-behaved/ able to entertain herself enough now that I can get stuff done at home so I don't _need_ her to go. We send her b/c she does get bored, she's social and she wants to play and I like that the art mess is on their turf, not mine.

Now at 18 months, I would've totally sent her. THAT is the age where I could've used some help keeping her busy and would've loved the break as she was still up a lot at night and clingy during the day. And as clingy as she was, she has always loved being out and doing things so I doubt separation anxiety would've been an issue.

V


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *c'est moi* 
maybe i'm just out of touch, but i consider kindergarten what you go to when you're 5. it's your first required exploration into "what is school?" preschool is the optional thing parents send their children to at 4, maybe even 3 years old. but really it's mostly just playing. anything before the age of 3 is just a care provider.

i guess i just assumed that any place that called themselves a "school" was just doing so for marketing appeal???


that's what I thought too. My coworker started sending her kid to full day preschool at 18 months. Isn't that just daycare?

However, apparently they do projects and have show and tell. from what it sounded like, his wife (sahm) was sort of pressured into the full day by the school. I was thinking... don't they get double the money for the time? How can they take the schools advice on something like that?

I do kind of agree with pp-- call it what it is. I know that this particular couple looks down on us for being a two working parent household.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Honestly, I can't call anything before age 3 "preschool." I have no problem with people sending their kids to programs before that age, but for myself and my own kids, I wouldn't be able to call it anything but daycare before age 3.

Kinda like how I just can't bring myself to call our duplex a "paired home" or "duet."


----------



## EVC (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:

Honestly, I can't call anything before age 3 "preschool." I have no problem with people sending their kids to programs before that age, but for myself and my own kids, I wouldn't be able to call it anything but daycare before age 3.

Quote:

Anything before the age of 3 is just a care provider.

i guess i just assumed that any place that called themselves a "school" was just doing so for marketing appeal???

Well, I do agree to some extent; however, I think the label "daycare" vs. "pre-school" is also sometimes based on the qualifications of the care providers. For example, dd went to "pre-school" starting at around 18 months. It was totally play-based and could legimitately be referred to as daycare. BUT the care providers were all trained in early childhood education, some with masters degrees and teaching credentials. They ALL held at least a BA and had completed a certain number of required education courses. For that--out of respect for the caretakers' training and qualifications as teachers--I believe it was referred to as a pre-school, rather than a daycare.

Just my two cents....


----------



## jadekat (Jun 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrsdewees* 
My 4-year-old isn't even in pre-school yet :-/ I am still undecided about whether I am going to homeschool or send her to school next year - and, apparently, I'm holding it off until the last minute. That being said, I want to enjoy my kids as long as possible. If she's going to start school, I want to keep her home with me until she's 5. Maybe I'm crazy though









I totally agree with you. I didn't send DD to school until last year when she started kindergarden. She did great and had no issues with me leaving her. I stay home to take care of my kids for as long as possible before they have to start school. It seems strange to me to send a 18 month old to "school". They have the rest of their lives to be in a school/work type of setting.


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

"I understand why some moms might want a break but why not just call it what it is, day care."

Hey, I'll call it whatever you want. I just know that it's an awesome thing for our family.









The place where my DDs go is really insistent on calling itself a preschool and on staffing all the rooms with a lead teacher who has an ECE degree. Part of that, for sure, is the parent-appeal factor, but I also think that my toddler's teacher has some training and expertise that I lack, particularly in the area of teaching basic social skills. FOR SURE the 4K teacher does. It may be pretentious, but ultimately I think it serves my children to have the school regard itself as an institute of early education rather than as a holding pen. In the afternoon, after a lot of the kids have gone home, the environment becomes more relaxed and daycare-like, and I think that's a good thing too. A morning of learning is enough. Having a nap and playtime while waiting for your parents off get off work is really more humane than having six hours of structured classtime every day.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smithie* 
It may be pretentious, but ultimately I think it serves my children to have the school regard itself as an institute of early education rather than as a holding pen.

I'm sure those mom's who use day cares (and the majority of care providers), don't think the places they leave their children as holding pens.

I think pretentious is the right word.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
I'm sure those mom's who use day cares (and the majority of care providers), don't think the places they leave their children as holding pens.

I think pretentious is the right word.

I agree with (what I think) smithie (was saying.) SAHM are more likely to send their 18 month old to something called preschool. It just doesn't make any sense for a SAHM to send their child to anything called daycare and these places know that. They market it as enrichment for the SAHM child, and it is something that is in high demand.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
I agree with (what I think) smithie (was saying.) SAHM are more likely to send their 18 month old to something called preschool. *It just doesn't make any sense for a SAHM to send their child to anything called daycare and these places know that.* They market it as enrichment for the SAHM child, and it is something that is in high demand.

i understand that that thinking. But many mom's are admitting they need the break. I just don't think that referring to daycares as holding pen's is necessary or accurate.

She's not just talking about marketing; I'm referring to the part of her post that says 'ultimately it serves my children...'.

I do think that the root of the 'preschool' discussion is the bold part of your post. Why doesn't it "make sense" for a sahm to do a daycare? Even when so many mom's are admitting that they need the break?


----------



## f&p'smama (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrsdewees* 
My 4-year-old isn't even in pre-school yet :-/ I am still undecided about whether I am going to homeschool or send her to school next year - and, apparently, I'm holding it off until the last minute. That being said, I want to enjoy my kids as long as possible. If she's going to start school, I want to keep her home with me until she's 5. Maybe I'm crazy though









I kept my twins home with me till they started Kindergarten 3 weeks ago. They have had no issues with school, do well with peers, their teachers and the expectations of school. I also wanted to have every possible minute with them and am very glad we made that choice. I got some flak from people about the decision to forego school, but we do not regret it at all.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

I got my first preschool comment last Sunday and was somewhat flabbergasted. A woman at church said to 2.5-year-old DD "You'll be three soon, and then I guess you'll be off to preschool!". I sort of stammered "Oh, we're not planning to do preschool" and she didn't make an issue of it... but I was surprised. I didn't think I'd have to field those kinds of comments until she was nearly 4 and due for kindy! Which we're also planning to skip, as we intend to homeschool, so I'm expecting comments... I just didn't expect them _yet_.

In my area I haven't noticed a trend to put super-young kids in preschool - aside from working-mum situations, anyway - but there's a definite hype around Mothers Of Pre-Schoolers, Mainly Music and other mum-and-baby activities. I did Mainly Music for a bit, but it wasn't really me.







We see other mums and babies/toddlers (DD's more interested in the babies and/or any food going!) twice a week, but in quite informal settings, and I've gotten a lot of comments that I should join a playgroup or something.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
i understand that that thinking. But many mom's are admitting they need the break. I just don't think that referring to daycares as holding pen's is necessary or accurate.

She's not just talking about marketing; I'm referring to the part of her post that says 'ultimately it serves my children...'.

I do think that the root of the 'preschool' discussion is the bold part of your post. Why doesn't it "make sense" for a sahm to do a daycare? Even when so many mom's are admitting that they need the break?

After reading the whole post I can understand your qualm.

And, I actually think it is a bit pretentious for a SAHM to send a toddler to daycare so that he may benifit from what the daycare babies are "learning" in the morning, and that this attitude might even be a slap in the face to parents who have no choice but to put their kids in full-day care.

I understand the need for a break. (Believe me I do.) What I feel even more than that is this guilt about not getting the paints out every day, or my lack of nursery rhyme skills, or my not possibly preparing DD for school, etc.

SAHMs do need help. It does take a village. It 'seems' wrong to _me_ when SAHMs send their babies off to daycare because society guilts them into thinking they are inadequate, and the village's only response to their needs is to herd their babies unnecessarily into institutionalized care earlier and earlier.

I do not judge any SAHM who has sent their young child to daycare/preschool. Honestly, my beef is with our society's attitude about fast-forwarding our children through early development.

And, for some context, we live in a very high COL area with a nationaly renowned school district. I see this all the time.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

My opinion is that the benefit is for the parent. Which I think is a great opportunity if you need a break. I could have really used this this past year-no support network and new setting was really hard for me. I never had a break. Dd1 is in preschool full time this year (4 days) and dd2 is just starting to go part time to a nanny so I can learn some French, breathe and look for a job.

I personally find it harsh if these palces are really truley trying to have 1.5 yo's sit still and be like a school. Kids that young need to run and play and explore. THey don't need to learn to read. Although adding in a language is never a abd thing =).


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
After reading the whole post I can understand your qualm.
*
And, I actually think it is a bit pretentious for a SAHM to send a toddler to daycare so that he may benifit from what the daycare babies are "learning" in the morning, and that this attitude might even be a slap in the face to parents who have no choice but to put their kids in full-day care.*

I understand the need for a break. (Believe me I do.) What I feel even more than that is this guilt about not getting the paints out every day, or my lack of nursery rhyme skills, or my not possibly preparing DD for school, etc.

SAHMs do need help. It does take a village. It 'seems' wrong to _me_ when SAHMs send their babies off to daycare because society guilts them into thinking they are inadequate, and the village's only response to their needs is to herd their babies unnecessarily into institutionalized care earlier and earlier.

I do not judge any SAHM who has sent their young child to daycare/preschool. Honestly, my beef is with our society's attitude about fast-forwarding our children through early development.

And, for some context, we live in a very high COL area with a nationaly renowned school district. I see this all the time.

I think you and I are on the same page except for bolded-- I can't imagine anyone thinking it was pretentious for a SAHM to use a service that she paid for! Why, I only use part time care, and I don't think I'm pretentious (well, about this)!

I agree that it takes village! Sometimes that village means a daycare (or day school, preschool or, as one I looked into calls it, a education day care school), sometimes it means a trusted sitter, or grandma, or husband, or best friend or neighbor.

I just don't think that we need to tear down any of these options by referring to them as a 'holding pen for kid's of wohm's'. We mom's should be better than that.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I don't personally know anyone who sent their children to preschool before they were two.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *c'est moi* 
maybe i'm just out of touch, but i consider kindergarten what you go to when you're 5. it's your first required exploration into "what is school?" preschool is the optional thing parents send their children to at 4, maybe even 3 years old. but really it's mostly just playing. anything before the age of 3 is just a care provider.

i guess i just assumed that any place that called themselves a "school" was just doing so for marketing appeal???

My concern is that kindergarten here is full day five days a week. So while I don't feel that my DS (4) NEEDS pre-K (and, in fact, we cannot afford it right now) I hope that the transition from at home with his dad to full time school isn't too much. I am not really a big fan of full day kindergarten.


----------



## April Dawn (Oct 31, 2009)

More and more kids do seem to go at a young age. I'm fretting about whether to send DS to preschool next year when he's two. I can't imagine being ready to leave him in a school-type setting - he's apart from me 3 days a week while I work, but he's always either with DH or his grandparents, never a day care type setting. But the preschool we're considering is attached to the elementary/middle school we are considering sending him to (it's a Catholic private school). The kids who start there at age 2 get the first shot at the spots in the older 3-4 preschool program. And if the kids who do preschool there are the first to get spots in the K-8 school. So... it ends up kind of pushing parents to start their 2 year olds.


----------



## Addie (Dec 19, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
I think what's new is calling daycare "preschool".







Around here, kids start going to "school" at 6 weeks old. That's what they call my nephew's daycare.

I see this in my family, too.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

I think what's new is calling daycare "preschool". Around here, kids start going to "school" at 6 weeks old. That's what they call my nephew's daycare.

Well, in all honesty, if people didn't feel so demonized for sending their children to daycare/childcare, maybe they would feel less compelled to call daycare "school." I see it here all the time.

My DD started Montessori school when she was two. Since the school goes to 8th grade and follows the NYC education department's rules and regulations, it hardly qualifies as daycare. But, whatever. Whether it's preschool, daycare, alternative education...we're doing what works for our family. Don't care how other people qualify it or if people disagree with how I qualify it.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CatsCradle* 
Well, in all honesty, if people didn't feel so demonized for sending their children to daycare/childcare, maybe they would feel less compelled to call daycare "school." I see it here all the time.

exactly.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
And, I actually think it is a bit pretentious for a SAHM to send a toddler to daycare so that he may benifit from what the daycare babies are "learning" in the morning, and that this attitude might even be a slap in the face to parents who have no choice but to put their kids in full-day care.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
I think you and I are on the same page except for bolded-- I can't imagine anyone thinking it was pretentious for a SAHM to use a service that she paid for! Why, I only use part time care, and I don't think I'm pretentious (well, about this)!

lol, I feel like I am digging myself a hole here.

I think it started with daycares making working parents feel better about sending their infants and toddlers to daycare by calling it preschool.

So, then daycare is called preschool and toddlers are being taught ABCs while mommy and daddy are at work, and all of the sudden, SAHMs are feeling like their kids are missing out on something.

Part time preschool is then marketed to the SAHM.

I think it is a slap in the face to working moms (assuming that working moms would stay home if they could. And, that is not always true) because it is basically flaunting that not only do you have enough money to SAH, but you also have enough money to put your child in PT care. It is like having your cake and eating it, too.

I recant the whole pretentious line. It is hardly pretentious to do what you believe is best for your children. My apologies. It depends on the SAHM's true motives and attitude. And, yeah, it is your own money, but that is not the point either.

I am hearing two things in this thread. The first being that it is ok to send a toddler to preschool when it is a really good school and she is learning a lot. And, the second being, it is ok because it is a nice break for the SAHM.

Both, of these reasons, I, _personaly_, don't believe are great reasons to send the under 2 crowd to an institutionalized setting for any regular amount of time if you don't have to. But, I think that this is another debate.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

I guess I just have a different perspective. I went back to work full-time when my son was just shy of two, so there was no question that he was going to be in care.

But I wanted a place where the adults were really engaged and had a really good sense of appropriate child development. And I figured since my son was going to be away from me anyway it would be nice to find a place that had "bonus features."

I found a Montessori (not saying Montessori is the only place or whatever; I just found an especially good one) with a great toddler and casa programme. I'm quite happy calling it a school because they do have -- through concrete play and activities -- an idea of what they are leading towards in terms of curriculum. Curriculum isn't something that they just have to do to be licensed; it's at every level from kid-sized sinks and toilets to shelves.

At the toddler age, for example, they have lots of really fun activities to help develop the hand muscles for more fine motor movements like writing later. Was I obsessed that my child learn to write early? No. But the activities were fun /and/ it helped. That's so cool. I would never have thought of letting my son prick paper with a relatively sharp object but oh he LOVED it.

It's not for every child I'm sure but for my son it really has enriched his life and really informed my parenting. At home he was also learning and growing but as one person, I only had one person's set of ideas for things to do. With our preschool he got to do things I wouldn't do, and loves them. And I got to learn about what turns my kid on.

So I don't see the issue. If it's not something you feel is right for your kid, that's absolutely fine with me.

Having seen the excitement and the joy of the other kids and the loving care of the teachers...if I were home and I could afford it, I'd do it all over again. It's just such a bonus in - warm, social fun.

No one has to feel sorry that anyone marketed to me or my child. We didn't put him in his Montessori so he'll go to a great college or because we 'should'; we picked it because it is a lovely place to spend his time learning in a slightly more organized, social way than we can provide at home.

Also just to address the "institutionalized setting." My son's toddler class was 6 kids and a teacher + assistants. Right now where they are it's a house converted to a school; the rooms are cosy and there's nice stuff around. I think you need to look at specific places before you toss that around. I certainly toured places that were more what I would call institutional but I'm not convinced that's where the majority of preschools end up.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Around here people call daycare "school" - so I know many young toddlers that are in "school" - but that's just what it's called, kwim? It's daycare. There are also many Mom's day out programs that boast a preschool curriculum, but I honestly think those are more about giving the SAHM a break than school.

Ds went to Waldorf nursery at age 3 part time. It was mainly because I had to work, but I do feel it was a nice, gentle transition into "school" for him. Loving teachers, lots of outside play, but also learning to play with other kids, sit at the table for lunch, etc. We have never planned to homeschool, so I think it was helpful for him to have some experience with being away from me in a gentle school setting before age 5.

I'm a WAHM (part time) but I also plan to send our next child (due in October) to Waldorf nursery, or maybe Montessori when he's around 3 years old. I don't think it's necessary for learning or development, but I do think it can be beneficial for kids to experience "school" prior to the real deal, esp if your plans are not to homeschool.


----------



## April Dawn (Oct 31, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
it is basically flaunting that not only do you have enough money to SAH, but you also have enough money to put your child in PT care. It is like having your cake and eating it, too.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
And, the second being, it is ok because it is a nice break for the SAHM.
Both, of these reasons, I, _personaly_, don't believe are great reasons to send the under 2 crowd to an institutionalized setting for any regular amount of time if you don't have to.

I don't know if you are a SAHM or a WOHM, but these statements sound kind of hostile to any SAHM who needs a break. The attitude seems to be, how dare a SAHM not only be able to afford SAH, but also need a break from it and be able to afford that?







I totally understand needing a break. I WOH part time. My work days are honestly my break. Yes, I work while I'm there - but I can have a cup of coffee, chat with a coworker uninterrupted, use the bathroom when I want. My days at home are much harder. I think if I were completely a SAHM, and didn't have family nearby, I would absolutely use a preschool. My situation right now is that I don't want my DS to start preschool any sooner than necessary - but again, I am fortunate enough to go to work and get a break several afternoons a week, and fortunate enough to leave him with my parents while I work. I know SAHMs with no family around and a partner who is gone very long hours. It's basically the mom and toddlers all day every day. I absolutely will not judge someone in that boat for needing the break that preschool provides!


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

I'm one of those SAHMs who is slapping those WOHM in the face with having two kids in their Montessori. Funny though, my WOHM friends don't feel that way at all. Being friends and good people I guess they are seeing the positive affect it has on my children, namely DS2 who I mentioned upthread, and being the loving aunties they are, they couldn't be more thrilled for him.

It's not at all institutionalized and it's pretty much like what GuildJenn has described of her school, down to my son even being in a class of 6 kids. I chose my school because of the feeling of community and it's very much a family feeling with the teachers, kids and other parents.

My goals in sending my kids to school is to instill a love of learning, not so that they can go to an Ivy league school, but so that they are eager to explore the world. Whether it be about the planets, dinosaurs, music, math, cooking, gardening, swimming you name it. I can do that to a degree, but I am not confident I can do it with the skill and competence that their teachers can. My sons are also part of a community that is larger than me, and they have their lives which has helped build them into the wonderful little creatures they are.

According to some people here, I might be pretentious, I might be fooling myself a bad SAHM, slapping other women in the face, but I take great pride in the Montessori I send my kids. I've seen them grow in so many ways in addition to the ways we at home enrich their lives is amazing. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at the judgment, but I am thankful that I'm not a newer or less experienced/confident mother to let it get to me, other than adding my not so humble two cents.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
I am hearing two things in this thread. The first being that it is ok to send a toddler to preschool when it is a really good school and she is learning a lot. And, the second being, it is ok because it is a nice break for the SAHM.

THe SAHM has one of the hardest jobs in the world. I'm an RN and my part-time job is WAY easier than my role at home. I get regular scheduled breaks at work for one thing. Any SAHM who can afford a break is welcome to it, IMO.


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

I think it's a cross between four things:

1) the afore-mentioned "daycare" as "school"

2) Early Intervention / Head Start for difficult situations

Children with special needs *can be harmed* by waiting until 5 to get help. My brother with Asperger's diagnosed in Kindergarten is nowhere near as sociable as DH's cousin with Asperger's diagnosed about age 2.

Children in poor families may benefit from Head Start programs. Maybe they don't have books at home for Mom & Dad to read to them. Maybe Mom & Dad are working three jobs each just to get by, and by the time they get home are too EXHAUSTED to read a story. Preschool may be the best thing for children in those situations.

3) SAHMs and SAHDs getting a well-deserved break... sometimes in order to allow them to

4) Send the toddler to part-time preschool so the at-home parent has some time to rest while pregnant / focus on just the baby.

------------

In our family, DH stayed home. DH did fine the first two years, when DS largely needed held, fed, burped, and changed... but he DEFINITELY needed a break. We set up one evening a week where DH could go out and I would focus on time with DS. I think it helped keep all of us sane.

As DS got older and needed more structured activities... DH's ADHD made it difficult to provide structure. DS was quite literally wilting from lack of attention, lack of structure, and lack of things to "do". We started DS in two mornings a week of Montessori preschool and a schedule of activities, and the difference is night and day.

Now that DH has a part-time job, it's two days/week. Next year I'd like to try 3 days.

For that matter, there are definite benefits to teaching ASL to developmentally normal babies and toddlers. I also recall a study that showed benefits to songs/games with clapping.

That said, why all this anti-"school" fervor? Most preschools know that music, movement, experience, and fun are the keys to learning. It's not like the preschoolers are spending all day bent over a desk or table!


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
I think it is a slap in the face to working moms (assuming that working moms would stay home if they could. And, that is not always true) because it is basically flaunting that not only do you have enough money to SAH, but you also have enough money to put your child in PT care. It is like having your cake and eating it, too.

Eh, well, I really don't care if another mother thinks that me doing what's best for my children, my family and myself is a slap in the face. I would think the wohm needs to work a bit more on feeling better about her life than feeling slapped in the face by me living mine.

There's nothing wrong with working outside the home and putting your kids in daycare, preschool, whatever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids 24/7 forever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids but still sending them off to daycare/preschool or just to a sitters occasionally so you don't pull your hair out in frustration because you need a break.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. Personally, I don't think someone who does have the money to stay at home and send their kids to daycare or preschool should feel bad about spending their money on that.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
Eh, well, I really don't care if another mother thinks that me doing what's best for my children, my family and myself is a slap in the face. I would think the wohm needs to work a bit more on feeling better about her life than feeling slapped in the face by me living mine.

There's nothing wrong with working outside the home and putting your kids in daycare, preschool, whatever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids 24/7 forever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids but still sending them off to daycare/preschool or just to a sitters occasionally so you don't pull your hair out in frustration because you need a break.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. Personally, I don't think someone who does have the money to stay at home and send their kids to daycare or preschool should feel bad about spending their money on that.

I think that is really well said.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dandelionkid* 
THe SAHM has one of the hardest jobs in the world. I'm an RN and my part-time job is WAY easier than my role at home. I get regular scheduled breaks at work for one thing. Any SAHM who can afford a break is welcome to it, IMO.

Word.

(BTW, to the person who asked, I am a SAHM. I made that pretty clear in my posts in this thread. I hope you read them all and did not just have a knee jerk reaction to a provocative quote out of context.)

Also, I also think I may be a bit jaded by books I have read on the subject







. I recommend The Hurried Child and Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk by David Elkind, as well as Holding on to your kids by Gordon Neufeld. I have also read Nurture shock and Einstein never use flashcards, but I can't remember if they covered this or not.

My understanding from my reading is that effects of early childcare on the socio-behavioral development of a child are negative to inconclusive. A study found that children who were in any form of institutional child care were more likely to be aggressive and defiant later in school. That the bump in reading and math skills disapears quickly. That early preschool is most benificial for low income families a la headstart and perhaps harmful in situation where the quality of childcare is lower than the overall parenting. In fact, the inhibition of social and emotional development as a result from early exposure to preschool is most strongly seen in children from the wealthier families.

What struck me most was the hypothesis that pushing kids into peer attachments too early could compromise their later development. It has been observed that children most resistant to being away from their parents and unable to attach to their teacher because of class size experience a great deal of stress. (in fact I read a study that showed children in a daycare setting have much higher cortisol levels by afternoon than children in the home.)

Moreover, children in these social settings swap out their parents as sole authority figures with their peers.

Being a SAHM is exhausting. We live tousands of miles away from nearest relatives. We don't know many people here. DH travels for weeks at a time. (He is gone right now.) I have felt enormous pressure to put DD in some kind of part-time care. Honestly, where I live it is the norm to have your 18 month old go to preschool. I am the abberration. I am on the defense.

With this background and knowledge, and what I see everyday in my community I am frustrated. I just don't like where this is going.

FWIW all the research I have done on preschools in the past have lauded montessori approach and methods. But, I want to emphasize, this discussion is about infant and toddler under 2. I have visited 2 montessori schools that offered a 2YO classroom and was not impressed. However these were not "official" AMI schools. The AMI schools in my area do not offer anything untill 2y8m or 3YO.


----------



## luv_my_babes (Dec 8, 2008)

.


----------



## bella99 (Sep 25, 2008)

Well I am a working mom who doesn't have a choice to put my child in daycare. In fact, she's been there since the age of 3 months. She is very well-adjusted, completely delightful, more than adequately attached, and we make decisions regarding her days at daycare along with the staff. That said...

...her daycare is hardly an "institutionalized" setting, which I've seen said in this discussion. That, if anything, is what is offensive. I work in an office of working moms, and I am the only one who's child is not with family members or a parent for childcare, because I have no family in the area. It is what it is. I wish things were different financially, but I don't feel remotely guilty about the decisions we've made, because I have a happy, active, loving little girl.

But were I to become a SAHM? She's still go two days a week, because this is her routine, and it does benefit HER and ME. We do call it school to her, not to anyone else though. The daycare is actually pretty well structured with 3 women there to take care for 11 children. They do specific activities at different times, whether it's crafts, story times, baking activities, etc etc. Its run by members of a religious community in this area who live communally. The daycare is not religious and we chose it because we felt she wouldn't just be take care of, but loved too. And she is. It's certainly not a holding pen.

Families make whatever decisions they feel are right for their family, even if it's sending a 2 or 3 year old to preschool without needing to because they think it will give the kids an "edge" when they are school age. We're all doing the best we can and what we think will be best for our kids.

One of the other children at my daughter's daycare does not work outside of the home or from home, but her daughter, who is 2.5, attends the daycare 5 days a week. Do I wonder why? Sure. Is it a slap in the face to someone like me, who has to put my child in daycare? Nope.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
lol, I feel like I am digging myself a hole here.
.... It is like having your cake and eating it, too.

lol!!! I Just wanted to give you a break from the other side of the fence.

I understand now what you are trying to say in your previous statement. in lower moments, i have thought that about the aforementioned coworker and his wife. Then i remember how little help she has in her husband, family, just any outside support.

The truth is I don't think either one of us would switch places with the other.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
My understanding from my reading is that effects of early childcare on the socio-behavioral development of a child are negative to inconclusive. A study found that children who were in any form of institutional child care were more likely to be aggressive and defiant later in school.

I'm a SAHM and don't use childcare, but I have to say, I find it rather odd to call daycare "institutional child care". Typically that term is reserved for orphanages, residential mental health care centers, etc. Children who attend daycare are not institutionalized. My child who spend the first part of her infancy in an overseas orphanage *was* institutionalized at the time. But calling daycare "institutional child care" just puts a very very negative connotation to it, which I'm sure cuts right to the heart for working moms...


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae* 
I'm a SAHM and don't use childcare, but I have to say, I find it rather odd to call daycare "institutional child care". Typically that term is reserved for orphanages, residential mental health care centers, etc. Children who attend daycare are not institutionalized. My child who spend the first part of her infancy in an overseas orphanage *was* institutionalized at the time. But calling daycare "institutional child care" just puts a very very negative connotation to it, which I'm sure cuts right to the heart for working moms...









I am pretty sure that is the term they used in the book, and in fact, if I remember correctly they qualified it by at least 10 hours a week in a setting with other children and an adult not their parent, in a place not a home.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

I have two daughters and third on the way. My first daughter has some special needs and I was the only one to care for her. She is now in school. My younger daughter is 3.5 years old. I have no babysitter, and haven't for 6 years. I am pregnant and have hyperemesis (although it is getting a bit better), I have an autoimmune thyroid disease, and I am EXHAUSTED.

Normally my youngest and I go to the pool, library, play groups etc.

BUT I can't keep up the pace right now. And I have appointments etc.

So....there is a new preschool (run in an actual school) and I registered her for two mornings a week.....a total of SEVEN hours a week. I book appointments with midwives and doctors and bloodwork etc during that time, do some housework etc.

And yes, for some reason some people feel that SAHM's do not deserve a break. That childcare and housework and cleaning is theirs totally. But if I was WOHM I would get coffee breaks and a one hour lunch break, as well as most of the WOHM's I know have girls night out etc. There is a lot of guilt put on SAHM if they say they need or eeeeekkkkk....if they say they DESERVE a break.

A woman that has children at my daughters school was appalled that I, as a SAHM didn't pick her up for her two breaks during the day and bring her home. (Because, of course I have all the time in the world, after all, all I do is stay at home all day







)

So. if I worked outside the home I would get 2- 15 minute breaks a day totalling 2.5 hours a week and an hour lunch a day....totally 5 hours. For a grand total of 7.5 hours.

I, as a SAHM drop my daughter off and pick her up two half days....for a grand total of just under 7 hours a week.

Why is that so so so bad?


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

I forgot to add. That I believe this seven hour a week break will benefit BOTH of us. (This is only our second week into it).

Benefits my daughter....she gets to play with friends, playdough, paint, play outside, try different foods, sing, learn, share etc.

Benefits me ...I get to wait for doctors appointments, and bloodwork without worrying about my daughter, and the germs and stuff in these places, and I know she is in a fun safe place. And maybe once a week....I do get to enjoy lunch alone.....


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
Eh, well, I really don't care if another mother thinks that me doing what's best for my children, my family and myself is a slap in the face. I would think the wohm needs to work a bit more on feeling better about her life than feeling slapped in the face by me living mine.

There's nothing wrong with working outside the home and putting your kids in daycare, preschool, whatever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids 24/7 forever.

There's nothing wrong with staying home with your kids but still sending them off to daycare/preschool or just to a sitters occasionally so you don't pull your hair out in frustration because you need a break.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. Personally, I don't think someone who does have the money to stay at home and send their kids to daycare or preschool should feel bad about spending their money on that.

I agree...I don't think that is every SAHM's responsibility to stay home and never get a break because it is a slap in the face to moms that work outside the home. Do WOHM ever get babysitters to go out in the evening? Or have a girls night out? I don't....and I could say that is a slap in the face to SAHM's.


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtoS* 
Why is that so so so bad?

Absolutely nothing.







I also got HG with my pregnancy. There is no way in the world I could handle that and a toddler.

Also, your DD is 3.5 much older than the 18 month olds I see going to 'preschool' here and what I take most issue with. I think you might be a bit defensive when you do not have to be.

My issues are:

~The trend I see of younger and younger babies being sent to PT daycare from SAHM homes

~The attitude of SAHMs I see (not all) feeling they must put their babies in PT 'preschool' to keep up with the jonses.

~The pressure I feel as a SAHM from society to put DD in preschool at 18 months for socialization and educational benifit, esp when I can't find a study that says that is true.

~And a bit off-topic, my belief that daycare/preschool/childcare has negative effects on young children although it is unavoidable in many situations...

~But that it is ok to send a toddler to preschool when it is a really good school and she is learning a lot, or because it is a nice break for the SAHM.

~That as a society we can't come together to promote solutions to exhausted SAHMs and environments where their young children can learn that do not have possible negative long term effects.

Finally, my extreme empathy for WOHM is perhaps unwarranted. I do tend to over-sympathize. I should not claim to know how a WOHM feels and I am sorry for offending any SAHMs who put their children in daycare PT.


----------



## bella99 (Sep 25, 2008)

Quote:

And yes, for some reason some people feel that SAHM's do not deserve a break. That childcare and housework and cleaning is theirs totally. But if I was WOHM I would get coffee breaks and a one hour lunch break, as well as most of the WOHM's I know have girls night out etc. There is a lot of guilt put on SAHM if they say they need or eeeeekkkkk....if they say they DESERVE a break.
I don't really care what SAHM's do or don't do. I assume they are doing what is best for them and their families. End.of.story.

But just to clarify. I work in social services, foster care to be exact. I don't get a coffee break and I generally eat lunch at my desk or between appointments on the road. I realize that's not true for every WOHM mom, but it is for most I know. I know very few mom's in my circle who get "girls's night out" and I have gotten a babysitter 3 times in my daughter's 22 months (all of which were visiting family members and after she went to bed). All of my free time is spent with my daughter.

Ellemenope, Why do you assume daycare/preschool is harmful across the spectrum? If you don't have any personal experience with your own children? I don't care one iota about what other people decide is good/bad for their own kids, it's none of my business, but I do get bothered when people make statements that what I am doing is harmful to my child, even if I get an excuse since I can't afford to stay home.

It's like the formula/breastfeeding discussion. People talk about how awful/harmful formula is but then say it's ok if someone has a "valid" excuse for doing it. Does anyone think that makes up for essentially telling someone they are harming their kid?

Daycares/preschools are not all created equal for sure, but making generalized assumptions across the board isn't accurate.

I know I am sorting of crashing here, since this is more of a SAHM discussion.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Sounds like we're trying to tally up points here, which is so irrelevant in my opinion because everyone has different issues, needs and wants.

Back to the original issues:

Is pre-school marketed as necessary? Of course. We live in a society where everyone is trying to expand business. It is not about if it is right or wrong or better. It is about dollars. Most pre-schools that I am familiar with are "for-profit" businesses. This is further complicated by the issue of what has become acceptable and necessary. We are told pre-school is necessary originally by the actual people marketing it, then as the concept catches on in a more general way, people begin to accept it as the norm. How is this any different than the model of car you drive, the kind of house you live it, the grade of college you attend? We are told that we need vitamins even though we are the most nourished civilization to ever exist in mankind.

DH and I both woh and have spent considerable time and effort in finding the preschool that best fits our philosophies and needs. It is easy to be sucked in by the marketing of certain schools and institutions that are selling a particular product and philosophy. It has been a difficult road for us but we feel confident in our choices...mainly because we have endeavored to educate ourselves on various matters.

Should SAHMs have to justify their need to send their children to preschool? Do SAHMs need to tally the minutes that working people spend on coffee breaks to justify the amount of hours that they send their children to preschool? Why are we having this discussion? Of course they don't need to justify their position. It is not my business nor the business of others to verify the number of hours that a SAH parent needs a break.

Do WOHMs need to feel guilty that their children are in preschool or other care for more than 10 hours a week. No, neither myself nor others need to worry about the studies done which profess negative impacts on children in care other than parents. I don't base my life on studies. There have been been studies that "only children" grow up to be socially deficient. There have been studies that men and women are likely to have affairs in their 40s. There have been studies about every conceivable issue under the sun, yet what it all boils down to is individual circumstances and personal dynamic. When studies are done which include my opinion and experience, then I'll take them more seriously.

So, if you feel that your child (or yourself) will benefit from pre-school, then go for it. If you feel there is no benefit, then for god's sake don't feel pressured into doing it or feel compelled to rend your clothes because somehow you're a deficient parent if you don't. You're a grownup now. You can make your own decisions and take stock in the outcome.


----------



## Mamja (May 23, 2007)

If there was a short week or short day 2 year old program in the area, I would have absolutely sent DD. Well, I guess technically she'd start at 1y11m if it was a school-year program. But I fully admit it would be for my benefit. I've got my hands full w/ both kids and I'd love to have some time "off" from toddler duty. I'm not concerned with her learning anything because she loves reading and coloring and learning with her family. And we do plenty of play dates and other activities. I don't know of anyone IRL who has sent a kid younger than 3 to a preschool that wasn't really a day care.


----------



## bella99 (Sep 25, 2008)

CatsCradle....


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

I guess I thought I could have an opinion based on books and studies I have read, make a decision for myself and family, share my beliefs without passing judgment on other moms here, and worry about the direction I see this society going regarding the subject.

This discussion is the third rail of MDC! beware.


----------



## DaughterOfKali (Jul 15, 2007)

I do sometimes wonder if sending kids off to some highly popular daycare/preschool is becoming the "In" thing to do.

The way I see it, though, is if the mom wants/needs some time for herself, then she should probably take it. If it means that she will be in a better place emotionally/physically for her child, then that surely must be a good thing.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemenope* 
Also, I also think I may be a bit jaded by books I have read on the subject







. I recommend The Hurried Child and Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk by David Elkind, as well as Holding on to your kids by Gordon Neufeld. I have also read Nurture shock and Einstein never use flashcards, but I can't remember if they covered this or not.

Maybe you need to expand your reading list a bit. I suggest Sarah Hrdy including Mothers and Others.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

I guess I thought I could have an opinion based on books and studies I have read, make a decision for myself and family, share my beliefs without passing judgment on other moms here, and worry about the direction I see this society going regarding the subject.

This discussion is the third rail of MDC! beware.

LOL! There's no shame in having an opinion. I've just find truth in experience, rather than truth in things which are based on samplings of the population which may or may not have a biased foundation. I just find it humorous that myself or the moms that I know have never been part of these "findings" which seem to dictate the directions that many parents base their opinion on. I mean, there are books and philosophies out there that are completely counter to what I feel is right and just. Like you, I listen and apply according to what I feel is appropriate in a parenting sense and a practical sense. There are things that feel wrong...there are things that feel right...then there are things which require compromise and we adjust our lives accordingly.


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

I was sent to PT preschool at 3, and I'm in my 30s. I don't think this is a new trend at all. I think the age has been pushed back a bit, but 3yo preschool (not daycare) wasn't that unusual 30 years ago, at least where I grew up. I know a lot of people my age who had 2 years. Also, if you're in an area with public preK, sending at 3 makes even more sense.

My daughter just started preschool. She'll be 4 in January. I would have liked to send her last year, but it wasn't possible for several reasons. Based on how much she loves it now, I think it would have been good for her last year too, but water under the bridge. She loves the variety of activities, the projects, the other kids (she's an only). It's a nice change of pace, and it's only a 3 hour session. Her preschool also does extended day and FT daycare, and sometimes I wish she stayed longer because she has such a good time! I only put her in 3 mornings a week because I thought it would be too much, but she begs to go and I'm thinking of moving her up to 5 mornings.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

We kind of laugh when neighbors call daycare for their 1yo school, or when daycare parents call my mom's day care (at her home) school. It's really something that's developed recently; no one called her business school back in the day. I just see school as something very different. I suppose if a bigger sibling is going to "real" school then a little kid might like to call their daycare school, but that's not the case with most of the people we hear this from; it's all first babies. Just a trend, it seems to us!

Now there are actually preschools around here-- really daycares-- that stress a curriculum for even what I consider babies. That's definitely part of the hothousing parenting where there's crazy pressure put on kids-- I've seen kids having nervous breakdowns by 9th grade b/c of the pressure! And now it's starting with real instruction every day for babies. Wild!


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

lol nevermind.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *St. Margaret* 
We kind of laugh when neighbors call daycare for their 1yo school, or when daycare parents call my mom's day care (at her home) school. It's really something that's developed recently; no one called her business school back in the day. I just see school as something very different. I suppose if a bigger sibling is going to "real" school then a little kid might like to call their daycare school, but that's not the case with most of the people we hear this from; it's all first babies. Just a trend, it seems to us!

Now there are actually preschools around here-- really daycares-- that stress a curriculum for even what I consider babies. That's definitely part of the hothousing parenting where there's crazy pressure put on kids-- I've seen kids having nervous breakdowns by 9th grade b/c of the pressure! And now it's starting with real instruction every day for babies. Wild!

I do agree that some people call daycare's school. I think it is more for the child's sake...it makes them feel older. (I can not speak for first children). My daugther's preschool actually follows the JK curriculum but at a very relaxed pace.

She is 3.5 and will start school next year, but she is a spring baby and will be one of the oldest in her class at 4.5 years old. (Children can start JK at 3 here as long as their birthday is before Dec 31). So sending her two mornings a week at 3.5 years isn't that much earlier than some children start full time school.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

This is probably going to get me flamed but don't you think young children need to be with there primary caregiver (usually mommy) most of the time? Believe me, I really really understand the need for a break but isn't more than an hour a week with non-family and large child to adult ratio excessive?

I feel like this is part of our culture's overall problem of pushing kids to grow up and be away from their parents to fast. Also I really dislike how there is a special class for children and adults go do something different. Children need to stay with their adults as we go about our day so they can learn from us how to be an adult. I think if you need a break it would be better to leave them with daddy or grandma or a good friend for a bit so they still get that interaction with the adult world. I apologize if I have offended anyone but it really makes me cringe sending children to daycare, preschool, even elementary school. Now flame away.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
This is probably going to get me flamed but don't you think young children need to be with there primary caregiver (usually mommy) most of the time? Believe me, I really really understand the need for a break but isn't more than an hour a week with non-family and large child to adult ratio excessive?

I feel like this is part of our culture's overall problem of pushing kids to grow up and be away from their parents to fast. Also I really dislike how there is a special class for children and adults go do something different. Children need to stay with their adults as we go about our day so they can learn from us how to be an adult. I think if you need a break it would be better to leave them with daddy or grandma or a good friend for a bit so they still get that interaction with the adult world. I apologize if I have offended anyone but it really makes me cringe sending children to daycare, preschool, even elementary school. Now flame away.

Well it really depends on whose book you're reading.

My perspective is that the importance of the primary caregiver (mother) has been completely overstated since the artificial era of the 1950s nuclear family - a VERY brief period of time. I honestly think that while AP certainly challenges us to be present for our kids and recognize the importance of a breastfeeding relationship in the first (and beyond) year that the emphasis on the mother as sole caregiver is actually a kind of feminist backlash movement that comes out of the societal trend to isolate mothers and families.

And I actually think this is very very much a consumer-driven trend because a solitary mother is much more likely to spend on consumer goods to entertain baby, to make her sacrifice worthwhile (from electronic toys to expensive Waldorf-type goodies), to keep her home immaculate, etc.

In the past young babies would likely have been cared for by in poor people's cases the extended family - aunts, grandmothers, older siblings - and by servants in the upper classes. Going back further I think Sarah Hrdy makes a really good case for alloparenting in primates.

When you talk about family I think you fall into the "I could never leave my child with a stranger" fallacy. There is certainly substandard care out there but I honestly think from my experience and from others' that someone who is trained to provide care, motivated to _choose_ childcare as a profession, and who is educated and experienced in childcare -- plus has good qualities which is where selection comes into play -- is probably a much higher-quality caregiver than a lot of family members might be.

Sure, we pay them. But anyone who's had a great paid caregiver knows that just because someone is getting paid doesn't mean they care less about our kids. And sometimes it's really nice because they also follow instructions to keep our kids' food, etc., more consistent.

So...no, if you're asking does everyone in the world believe that is a proven fact? I don't. I say that from Canada where I have the luxury of mat leave for a year, which I think is a good length of time to work these things out. But really I don't think it's given that 23/7 with mom is always the best, no. I think we completely miss the boat on what "attachment" means.

Now obviously we can point to extremes - and there are bad/poor care situations, long long hours in care (like 12 a day), etc. But I could also point to extremely poor SAH care. So I try not to. I also don't find studies that conclusive - most have shown it's a wash entirely dependent on quality of care.

IMO a good bond with mum and dad AND good bonds with other people makes for great attachmentS. For me it's like how you tell siblings "love is not a cup of sugar that gets used up."

ETA: Just wanted to add that I don't think being home with mum is a bad idea either. To me it's like being an only child or being 1 of 8 - different families, same growing up.







It's more about what works for that particular family.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

GuildJenn - You rock.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I apologize if I have offended anyone but it really makes me cringe sending children to daycare, preschool, even elementary school. Now flame away.

I'm not going to flame you







but I do think you need to broaden your world view a bit.

And, wow, this is the second time I've seen the Mommy Wars extended into the elementary school years. The first time was when a coworker said people send their kids to public school instead of homeschooling because they are just lazy


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
This is probably going to get me flamed but don't you think young children need to be with there primary caregiver (usually mommy) most of the time? Believe me, I really really understand the need for a break but isn't more than an hour a week with non-family and large child to adult ratio excessive?
.

ONE HOUR A WEEK? Really? I have my 3.5 year old in preschool two mornings a week...for a total of slightly under 7 hours a week (this is her second week in preschool and she loves it). Yesterday was one of those days. I went to my older daughter's IEP meeting at the school. Then a midwifes appointment then some groceries. Then I picked her up.

I use this 7 hours wisely and pick things to do that aren't that much fun for a 3. 5year old. Like bloodwork, appointments, paying bills, groceries etc.

I spent the past 6 years without ONE hour a week to do stuff without children.....and let me tell I am a much better mom now that I have a bit of a break and can plan stuff both with and without dd.

Even as a super mom, less than one hour a week with NO children does take its toll.

Do you bring your children to every appointment, grocery shopping, showering, bathing, errands etc? Do you ever feel the need to have a break?


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

I really, really love GuildJean's post.









And an hour a week away from my kids? That's not enough time for a mani & a pedi, or to do all my grocery shopping by myself!


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

I think kids should be with mom/dad a lot, but I think that REALLY "in the jungle" as we say, there would be a wider family net the kid would be super comfy with, that would all live together, have the same traditions and values, etc. So moms do need breaks! But it's harder to find good care to get those breaks. What you call the care is just lingusitics I suppose. But also pushing babies (I mean, 12-24mo I've seen) to have a real, set curriculum seems like another matter, and rather silly, as far as I can see. An awesome playschool for messy crafts and playing outside and singing and playing together-- while mom gets to do stuff on her own a couple times a week, whether she's working or not, awesome!


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Im one of those people that finds it more of a break to have my child with me all the time, that to have to travel and be under pressure to be at a certain place at a certain time etc etc.
Ds2 has a bit of separation anxiety as well. Its no break for me to hear him scream as i try to tear away for something i have to do, where, if only i could take him with me, but i cannot...thats not a break.

However, now he is 2 1/2, and he really loves painting and singing. I dont do the former quite as well as some of these places. Ive found a great program, where i leave him for two hours, only if he is ready. I can come and go.

2 hours isnt much of a break and getting there is a pain, so this is not a break. This is for his benefit only.

I have stayed with him for the first two sessions. But yesterday, i was really hungry, so i said to him 'mommy is going to get lunch, and you will stay here'

He gave me that big sad fearful expression.

I said 'I wont be long, and i will come straight back'

Well, i waited around, and they started their arts and crafts section. I sat next to him, and he said 'Mommy go, lunch'
i replied' OK? Ill right now and get lunch'
"yes,now! go, go mommy'

I went, and got lunch. 

I got back, and he was soooooo happy to see me.

if i had more money, i would enroll him twice a week instead of once. But i guess i can make up for it at home.

As for ds1, now 5, he is a total extravert, and i wished i could have enrolled him in something in his 2's for that reason.(something where i could come and go as well) But we managed, and he performs very well, despite never having been to preschool prior to age 3, and then only 3 days a week. That was perfect.

I think anything younger than 2 1/2 is too young, unless you have to. But that is only going by my own kids.
Maya


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
My perspective is that the importance of the primary caregiver (mother) has been completely overstated since the artificial era of the 1950s nuclear family - a VERY brief period of time.


Well, in my experience, anytime after 10months of age, the baby didnt like to be with anyone but mommy (me). It was nice to play with aunt, grandma, friend, but only if i was around. The child doth protest, and i dont think this is brought on by some kind of commercial campaign. I liked the sound of your argument, but i dont think its right.

Im not part of a nuclear family, im a single mother. Nuthin' nuclear.

When my ds1 was 2, and going to the playground with grandma while i stayed home with a newborn, he just wasnt as happy as when i came along. Yes, he loves grandma, and loves to spend time with her, but he still preferred me, and he was unhappy with any separation.

Just my experience....


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
Well, in my experience, anytime after 10months of age, the baby didnt like to be with anyone but mommy (me). It was nice to play with aunt, grandma, friend, but only if i was around. The child doth protest, and i dont think this is brought on by some kind of commercial campaign. I liked the sound of your argument, but i dont think its right.

Im not part of a nuclear family, im a single mother. Nuthin' nuclear.

When my ds1 was 2, and going to the playground with grandma while i stayed home with a newborn, he just wasnt as happy as when i came along. Yes, he loves grandma, and loves to spend time with her, but he still preferred me, and he was unhappy with any separation.

Just my experience....

My son went through some periods like that too, but I think a lot of the issue was that that was what he was used to. He wasn't that way with my husband, who was around the house a lot (working from home). And after a week or so he wasn't that way with his nanny, who started working for us when he was about 16 months, for 10 hours a week (I was home to that point).

I'm not fundamentally opposed to children experiencing some frustration and upset. I'm opposed to them experiencing that in a non-caring environment (CIO, punitive time outs, etc.) I'm opposed to not evaluating whether they are getting more comfortable. There probably are kids who can't adjust for whatever reason. But I also don't think that fussing when something is _not routine_ is a sign that the mother must stay conjoined at the hip.

I know I diverge from some of the AP thinking on this board with this, and that's ok. I'm very into gentle discipline, age-appropriateness, etc. But I am not opposed to letting my child experience some anxiety _in the arms of a loving caregiver_ and learning that - mum comes back.

Separation anxiety peaks around 18 months & is normal and should be listened to in terms of comforting the child and accommodating it when possible - but I also don't think it's a sign that the only answer is to stay together either. A child of that age is aware of object permanence. I think it is okay for a child of that age to be learning that comfort comes from other people (unlike say, a newborn who wants to nurse).


----------



## bella99 (Sep 25, 2008)

I gotta say, maya, my daughter is nothing like your sons then. And yes, she is extremely attached to me, and, in general, I am her "favorite" person. She goes to me for cuddles, playtime, and comfort more than anyone else. But...

...she's been going to daycare since she was 3 months old when I had no choice but to go back to work (although I have very little desire to be a fulltime SAHM). She does occasionally have days when I have to stay a little bit to give her extra hugs and kisses because she needs it, but most of the time, I stand there trying to get her attention for her to *at least* say goodbye to me, but I get nada.









And when we come to pick her up, she runs laughing into our arms. There is no protesting going or coming.

GuildJenn, great post. And along the lines of attachment, your post reminded me of a training I went to on disordered attachment in children with a well-known author. Someone asked about daycare being harmful in the separation from a parent. He basically said, that assuming the quality of care is good of course, that daycare can foster healthy attachment in babies and toddlers (even those with some disordered attachment). He asked how there could be something negative about a child loving and being loved?


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

The thing that I find frustrating about these discussions (here at MDC) is the concept of attachment parenting and what that actually means. It is frustrating for me because I have seen and continue to see an extreme checklist approach to the philosophy which I thinks defeats the very purpose of attachment. Attachment is not born out of minutes and hours, but of bonds created through an attention to needs and creating a connection and bond between the child and parent. As a child who was adopted by a stepmother at age four and who had no prior joined-at-the-hip experience with this woman, I formed a bond with her despite the adverse conditions. I love her and she loves me and despite all the pre-four-year-old stuff that I encountered...I'm not disfunctional and I'm not a serial killer!









I'm not trying to undermine the mother/child connection, but I guess I see it from the point of view that even in adverse situations (something as simple as separation anxiety), the basic questions are "am I loved" and "do I feel secure." In my case, I did feel loved and did feel secure and my needs were met despite the fact that bio-mom wasn't there to meet those needs. Other people met those needs and gave me sense of security and well-being. If you're scared that you will lose the bond, then you must question if that bond was really in secure in the first place. Just my opinion, but I believe that securely bonded children will know that the parent is there for them despite the lack of physical presence. I thought that was what attachment parenting was all about.

We want the best for our children. We are dealt certain cards and we make the best of it. We are human beings with varying experiences, needs and circumstances. It is normal and historical for parents to agonize over their parenting and their children's futures.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grniys* 
And an hour a week away from my kids? That's not enough time for a mani & a pedi, or to do all my grocery shopping by myself!

I'm sorry I don't think my post was clear. I didn't mean that you should not ever be away from your children for more than an hour a week. What I meant was that I would not feel comfortable leaving my children in an *institutionalized* setting for more than an hour.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well it really depends on whose book you're reading.

My perspective is that the importance of the primary caregiver (mother) has been completely overstated since the artificial era of the 1950s nuclear family - a VERY brief period of time. I honestly think that while AP certainly challenges us to be present for our kids and recognize the importance of a breastfeeding relationship in the first (and beyond) year that the emphasis on the mother as sole caregiver is actually a kind of feminist backlash movement that comes out of the societal trend to isolate mothers and families.

And I actually think this is very very much a consumer-driven trend because a solitary mother is much more likely to spend on consumer goods to entertain baby, to make her sacrifice worthwhile (from electronic toys to expensive Waldorf-type goodies), to keep her home immaculate, etc.

That's really interesting because because I see our culture as pushing women to leave their children with professional caregivers who are supposed to be more qualified to raise our children so that the mother must return to the workforce to "contribute to society." I also see it as consumer-driven because two incomes has become the norm in order to be able to afford our lavish lifestyles.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
In the past young babies would likely have been cared for by in poor people's cases the extended family - aunts, grandmothers, older siblings - and by servants in the upper classes. Going back further I think Sarah Hrdy makes a really good case for alloparenting in primates.

I absolutely believe that the extended family and the village is the ideal way to raise children. But I don't believe taking our children to preschool mimics this very well. I see schools as a holding place for them to do "children's activities" and keep them out of the way for adults to do "adult activities." This is supposed to prepare them for the real world better than actually living in the real world.

Bringing this back to the original thread topic, I just don't see it as a good thing to begin separating the adult and child world even earlier than we already do.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CatsCradle* 
The thing that I find frustrating about these discussions (here at MDC) is the concept of attachment parenting and what that actually means. It is frustrating for me because I have seen and continue to see an extreme checklist approach to the philosophy which I thinks defeats the very purpose of attachment. Attachment is not born out of minutes and hours, but of bonds created through an attention to needs and creating a connection and bond between the child and parent. As a child who was adopted by a stepmother at age four and who had no prior joined-at-the-hip experience with this woman, I formed a bond with her despite the adverse conditions. I love her and she loves me and despite all the pre-four-year-old stuff that I encountered...I'm not disfunctional and I'm not a serial killer!









I'm not trying to undermine the mother/child connection, but I guess I see it from the point of view that even in adverse situations (something as simple as separation anxiety), the basic questions are "am I loved" and "do I feel secure." In my case, I did feel loved and did feel secure and my needs were met despite the fact that bio-mom wasn't there to meet those needs. Other people met those needs and gave me sense of security and well-being. If you're scared that you will lose the bond, then you must question if that bond was really in secure in the first place. Just my opinion, but I believe that securely bonded children will know that the parent is there for them despite the lack of physical presence. I thought that was what attachment parenting was all about.

We want the best for our children. We are dealt certain cards and we make the best of it. We are human beings with varying experiences, needs and circumstances. It is normal and historical for parents to agonize over their parenting and their children's futures.

This is really a great post. There seems to be this undercurrent of thought on this board about how if you aren't do X, Y, and Z exactly as prescribed in the attachment parents handbook, you are doing it wrong and will damage your children forever.

There's also this subtle judgement that is always flowing underneath the top layer of "Oh, whatever works for your family, but I WOULD NEVER" which is not particularly helpful.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
That's really interesting because because I see our culture as pushing women to leave their children with professional caregivers who are supposed to be more qualified to raise our children so that the mother must return to the workforce to "contribute to society." I also see it as consumer-driven because two incomes has become the norm in order to be able to afford our lavish lifestyles.

Actually, if you really dig into the research on the need for two incomes you'll find most people in the US, anyway, are not striving for a "lavish" lifestyle. It's actually mostly about being able to afford real estate in good school districts. From Salon's Q&A with Elizabeth Warren:


> "Being a parent is the best predictor that a person will file for bankruptcy. Are parents more profligate than nonparents? What's wrong with this family? Since they're going bankrupt four times more often than their parents did a generation ago, I thought that this would be a story of overconsumption -- too many trips to the mall, too many designer toddler outfits, too many Gameboys.
> 
> The data show, however, that today's families are actually


*spending less on consumption* [emphasis mine] that their parents spent a generation ago: 22 percent less on clothing, 21 percent less on food, including eating out, 44 percent less on appliances, less on furniture, less on floor coverings.

And I have to tell you, that finding stopped me dead in my tracks. It's counter to every conventional wisdom out there....

Today's families are in financial trouble, because they're spending so much more on big fixed expenses -- mortgage, health insurance, car, preschool, after-school care and college. "
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/20...nts/index.html

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I absolutely believe that the extended family and the village is the ideal way to raise children. But I don't believe taking our children to preschool mimics this very well. I see schools as a holding place for them to do "children's activities" and keep them out of the way for adults to do "adult activities." This is supposed to prepare them for the real world better than actually living in the real world.

Bringing this back to the original thread topic, I just don't see it as a good thing to begin separating the adult and child world even earlier than we already do.

I have to wonder if you've been in a good preschool. Have you?

It's true it doesn't mimic time with a variety of adult - but so does most time with adults. Because ADULTS don't work communally to harvest the farm or all get together to make candles or whatever anymore. And the idea that they used to spend more time with kids - ehn.

First, the research doesn't support it. Second, my own experience doesn't.

This is exactly why I found _Hold Onto Your Kids_ kind of ridiculous, frankly. I grew up in the 70s when stay-at-home moms were so much the norm that people PROTESTED that the school was considering opening a lunch programme for those evil, evil moms that wouldn't have a hot meal on the table for their kids.

And let me tell you - our moms, overall, were *not* there listening to our every word and seeking attachment with us. They just weren't.

Adult and child spheres were way WAY WAY more separate than they are today. WAY. And all the data suggests that is true - that parents spend more time interacting with their kids -- even working parents -- than parents did a generation ago.

I watch _Mad Men_ (which is set a little earlier) and I laugh, because that's what it was like. The moms were continually telling us to go outside and get out of their hair, or go to our rooms. I mean sure - they loved us. They were there at home. But they were not exactly - connected. Bullying was mostly seen as a kid problem and so on.

I suspect this was also true of my grandparents' generation where children were to be "seen and not heard" and "little pitchers have big ears" and all that.

I am really really suspicious of this golden era of stay at home mothering. And I'm suspicious of the idea that family caring was somehow gloriously better. I think it was different - I'd characterize it as "less competent, more love."

ETA: I would say we were much more peer oriented at that time. I never told my parents I was being bullied. In my teens, pre cell-phone, I would frequently not be in touch all day. I was just home for dinner.

And my own parents were even more so. My grandmother used to lock her kids out of the house on weekends so they wouldn't bother her. My dad's parents didn't really know he was dating until he was basically engaged. My grandfather often recalled that his father, a farmer, only ever really had one conversation with him that wasn't ordering him around. My other grandmother was sent to work on an aunt's family farm at 13 and saw her parents only a few times after that.


----------



## exigently (May 13, 2008)

friends, it seems that we, as mothers and fathers, are defending our positions as right and true ways. but families have many ways of doing and living.

we live in china. i, a mother of a two year old daughter, employ an ayi ('aunt' or nanny) for 12 hours a week. i use this time to work in gainful employ, as well as work on my own artistic projects. sometimes i go to a nice coffeeshoppe and have a nice latte all to myself.

sometimes i choose to let our daughter have time with another caring adult, so i can simply sit and think. as a wife, mother, and woman. i indulge, on occasion. in the ability to take careful stock of my life, my family, and renew my energy for all that i do.

i do not find any guilt in this. i am also privileged by living in a culture that has options such as an 'ayi' (surrogate aunt). the 'nuclear family', by my understanding, is a modern and western invention. in many societies, presently and throughout history, parents and children benefit by the support of the extended family. in cultures where the extended family is no longer the norm, i will not be quick to condemn a parents' choice (or necessity) to avail themselves of options such as day-care.

i say this from the perspective of a radical unschooler, nomad mama....but i realize that other mamas are faced with different circumstances. some of us have the resources to stay at home. some don't. some of us believe that a preschool is an appropriate setting for their child. others do not. wherein lies the conundrum?

i feel that mums and dads need to be full people - not reduce themselves to a role as merely 'parent'. please do not misunderstand....'parent' is a grand title. but to be good and effective guides and inspirations to our children, we must continue to grow and develop as people. as mothers and fathers. as women and men (or fathers/fathers etc as the case may be). as people. we must continue to be dynamic, expanding human beings if we want to raise aware and integrated children.

as long as we have taken our child's wishes and temperament into consideration, and as long as we are striving, consciously, for the best awareness of our family, i do not see why anyone can proclaim one path against another. stay at home, day care.....what matters, in my idea, is that we are connected with the particular needs of our children, not some 'good parenting' pecking-game.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 

*I watch Mad Men (which is set a little earlier) and I laugh, because that's what it was like. The moms were continually telling us to go outside and get out of their hair, or go to our rooms. I mean sure - they loved us. They were there at home. But they were not exactly - connected. Bullying was mostly seen as a kid problem and so on.*

I suspect this was also true of my grandparents' generation where children were to be "seen and not heard" and "little pitchers have big ears" and all that.

I am really really suspicious of this golden era of stay at home mothering. And I'm suspicious of the idea that family caring was somehow gloriously better. I think it was different - I'd characterize it as "less competent, more love."

ETA: I would say we were much more peer oriented at that time. I never told my parents I was being bullied. In my teens, pre cell-phone, I would frequently not be in touch all day. I was just home for dinner.

And my own parents were even more so. My grandmother used to lock her kids out of the house on weekends so they wouldn't bother her. My dad's parents didn't really know he was dating until he was basically engaged. My grandfather often recalled that his father, a farmer, only ever really had one conversation with him that wasn't ordering him around. *My other grandmother was sent to work on an aunt's family farm at 13 and saw her parents only a few times after that.*

As much as I enjoy watching _Mad Men_ because I think the production is well done, I find it hard to watch the family scenes with children for this reason. They've really captured what it was like.

Your point about children being sent away to work is important too. It wasn't at all unusual for children to be "sent out" to work at very tender ages. Not pre-schoolers, which is what this thread is about, however there also were a lot of neglected babies and toddlers left with minimal care while their parents were out bringing in the sheaves.

There's a strong sense of nostalgia for a mythical halcyon past where a small nuclear family group bonded together and provided for each other. In fact, for much of history, lives were pretty desperate and a lot of burdens were placed on the very young to manage their own survival. It isn't a recent phenomenon either. Children worked in fields, as domestic servants, in mines, as pages to knights in Medieval times, in the Navy and the Army, long before they were ever sent into factories after the Industrial Revolution. There may have been a very small portion of wealthy families who could afford to keep their children at home and educate them. When we are comparing trends in child-rearing today, it's important to keep an accurate historical view in mind.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Karamom said:


> I'm sorry I don't think my post was clear. I didn't mean that you should not ever be away from your children for more than an hour a week. What I meant was that I would not feel comfortable leaving my children in an *institutionalized* setting for more than an hour.
> 
> Karamom--so you do spend more than one hour away from your children?
> 
> ...


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I absolutely believe that the extended family and the village is the ideal way to raise children. But I don't believe taking our children to preschool mimics this very well. I see schools as a holding place for them to do "children's activities" and keep them out of the way for adults to do "adult activities." This is supposed to prepare them for the real world better than actually living in the real world.
.

Have you been to a good preschool? Because ours enriched our lives considerably. We were part of a true community. I know standards vary, but I can't believe ours is the only child-care center like that?

And back to the original question - we attended a child-care center that was a converted home. One side was referred to as the "toddler" side, and the other was referred to as the "preschool" side, and it's generally 3.5 and up.

I've seen places that call themselves things like "Kiddie Academy" that boast the "learning environment", but I don't check those out because they are not my style.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I think if you need a break it would be better to leave them with daddy or grandma or a good friend for a bit so they still get that interaction with the adult world. I apologize if I have offended anyone but it really makes me cringe sending children to daycare, preschool, even elementary school. Now flame away.

I don't think I am in a rare position in that I don't have lots of relatives and friends chomping at the bit to take care of my children for me. Yes, they sometimes help out when needed. But no, I could not use them for regular breaks (and most of them work full-time, anyway). And while I do sometimes go out while DH watches them, it would be nice to get some time with my DH as well, and have some breaks when he is at work.

I also think my DD got more interaction and was happier at her Montessori preschool than she generally was spending time with family members who weren't always focused on her.

I love being with my kids. But I love it more when I also have time to focus on myself and my needs. In an ideal world I would have lots of loving family and friends that create a village for my children, retired grandparents that want to spend time with them in the day, etc. But I don't. And, sadly, I'm far from alone in that. DD's Montessori school really felt like family after a little while, and DS will go there when he's 3. And I'm really glad that he will get to be with those wonderful, loving teachers that DD enjoyed so much.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *exigently* 
as long as we have taken our child's wishes and temperament into consideration, and as long as we are striving, consciously, for the best awareness of our family, i do not see why anyone can proclaim one path against another. stay at home, day care.....what matters, in my idea, is that we are connected with the particular needs of our children, not some 'good parenting' pecking-game.

I so agree. And I would also add in "not making decisions in fear."

I did for the first year and half of my son's life and that's one thing I would change going forward. I had a lot of prejudices that were not based on anything but fear.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
There's a strong sense of nostalgia for a mythical halcyon past where a small nuclear family group bonded together and provided for each other. In fact, for much of history, lives were pretty desperate and a lot of burdens were placed on the very young to manage their own survival. It isn't a recent phenomenon either. Children worked in fields, as domestic servants, in mines, as pages to knights in Medieval times, in the Navy and the Army, long before they were ever sent into factories after the Industrial Revolution. There may have been a very small portion of wealthy families who could afford to keep their children at home and educate them. When we are comparing trends in child-rearing today, it's important to keep an accurate historical view in mind.

Totally. If we are talking about books and research and that kind of thing (as opposed to individual decisions which I totally support in almost any direction) I think it is important to try to keep those things in mind, especially if we are talking about mothers, where I do believe there is a push to disempower women economically combined with a kind of "boomer nostalgia machine".


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 

There's a strong sense of nostalgia for a mythical halcyon past where a small nuclear family group bonded together and provided for each other. In fact, for much of history, lives were pretty desperate and a lot of burdens were placed on the very young to manage their own survival. It isn't a recent phenomenon either. Children worked in fields, as domestic servants, in mines, as pages to knights in Medieval times, in the Navy and the Army, long before they were ever sent into factories after the Industrial Revolution. There may have been a very small portion of wealthy families who could afford to keep their children at home and educate them. When we are comparing trends in child-rearing today, it's important to keep an accurate historical view in mind.

I agree. I'm told the book _The Way We Never Were_ is very good. This thread has reminded me to check it out.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
As much as I enjoy watching _Mad Men_ because I think the production is well done, I find it hard to watch the family scenes with children for this reason. They've really captured what it was like.

My mom can't watch _Mad Men_ because it's too painful for her to be reminded of those elements of her childhood.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Yesterday when I wrote my posts I was feeling argumentative and in the mood for a debate but reading through this today I am feeling really yucky about this thread. Maybe it's all the pregnancy hormones. I want to expand but I can't at the moment as I have to watch my children. I am planning to come back and write more after they go to bed tonight.


----------



## justKate (Jun 10, 2008)

Wow. Interesting read.

Just wanted to pipe in that I call my (first and only) 19 mo. DD's daycare a "school" because that's the sign I know.







I though it was funny to ask her "are you ready to go to baby school, to learn to be a baby?" Also Daddy is a FT student, so I was hoping it would help her understand when he's not around that "Daddy is at school."

Although I have to WOTH FT, I'll be a SAHM in about nine months, at which time I plan to put DD in some sort of care two mornings a week for my own sanity. She LOVES other children. I might call it school, but if they had her sitting down "learning" in a school-like setting I would pull her out in a heartbeat. But to each his own...that's the wonderful thing about having your own children. You get to make the choices!


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *odenata* 
I don't think I am in a rare position in that I don't have lots of relatives and friends chomping at the bit to take care of my children for me. Yes, they sometimes help out when needed. But no, I could not use them for regular breaks (and most of them work full-time, anyway). And while I do sometimes go out while DH watches them, it would be nice to get some time with my DH as well, and have some breaks when he is at work.

I also think my DD got more interaction and was happier at her Montessori preschool than she generally was spending time with family members who weren't always focused on her.

I love being with my kids. But I love it more when I also have time to focus on myself and my needs. In an ideal world I would have lots of loving family and friends that create a village for my children, retired grandparents that want to spend time with them in the day, etc. But I don't. And, sadly, I'm far from alone in that. DD's Montessori school really felt like family after a little while, and DS will go there when he's 3. And I'm really glad that he will get to be with those wonderful, loving teachers that DD enjoyed so much.

I totally agree. It would be great to have family and friends there and willing to watch my children. That doesn't happen often.

So...I could get someone that is distracted and in a hurry for me to come home to watch my children. Someone that is not reliable, and really not interested in watching my children......

OR

I could drop her off at a place that has two teachers that she really likes. They have fun activities and she has little friends (there are three other children there). She loves it.

So which situation is better for me and my child?


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama* 
Have you been to a good preschool? Because ours enriched our lives considerably. We were part of a true community. I know standards vary, but I can't believe ours is the only child-care center like that?

And back to the original question - we attended a child-care center that was a converted home. One side was referred to as the "toddler" side, and the other was referred to as the "preschool" side, and it's generally 3.5 and up.

I've seen places that call themselves things like "Kiddie Academy" that boast the "learning environment", but I don't check those out because they are not my style.

No kidding. It's not like at our preschool, the kids are all tied to their desks and expected to memorize the ABCs. There are work tables for multiple kids and the activities they do. The Montessori we use has my oldest leaving every day, telling a teacher who has never taught him, but pinch hits with care, hat he loves her. And she responds in kind right back. The principal is actually getting annoyed with me, because as a post partum mother, she doesn't feel like I'm resting enough. Her and many of the teachers are from cultures where children are adored and women take are of one another (especially pregnant/post partum moms), and its great that my kids can be exposed to that kind of community caring. This is part of our village. My sons love their teachers and the feeling is more than mutual.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

But to each his own...that's the wonderful thing about having your own children. You get to make the choices!
Excellent point, justKate. And, I think I'd be hard pressed to find a parent on these boards who didn't have the best interests of their children in mind when making those choices. I think it is easy to get caught up in downfall of society theories, but generally I think that parents are working very hard everywhere to do what they think is best given their circumstances. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But, with the exceptions I think you'll find that lack of good parenting plays a more critical role in the outcome than the means and methods.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 

First, the research doesn't support it. Second, my own experience doesn't.

This is exactly why I found _Hold Onto Your Kids_ kind of ridiculous, frankly. I grew up in the 70s when stay-at-home moms were so much the norm that people PROTESTED that the school was considering opening a lunch programme for those evil, evil moms that wouldn't have a hot meal on the table for their kids.

And let me tell you - our moms, overall, were *not* there listening to our every word and seeking attachment with us. They just weren't.

Adult and child spheres were way WAY WAY more separate than they are today. WAY. And all the data suggests that is true - that parents spend more time interacting with their kids -- even working parents -- than parents did a generation ago.

I watch _Mad Men_ (which is set a little earlier) and I laugh, because that's what it was like. The moms were continually telling us to go outside and get out of their hair, or go to our rooms. I mean sure - they loved us. They were there at home. But they were not exactly - connected. Bullying was mostly seen as a kid problem and so on.

I suspect this was also true of my grandparents' generation where children were to be "seen and not heard" and "little pitchers have big ears" and all that.

I am really really suspicious of this golden era of stay at home mothering. And I'm suspicious of the idea that family caring was somehow gloriously better. I think it was different - I'd characterize it as "less competent, more love."

ETA: I would say we were much more peer oriented at that time. I never told my parents I was being bullied. In my teens, pre cell-phone, I would frequently not be in touch all day. I was just home for dinner.

And my own parents were even more so. My grandmother used to lock her kids out of the house on weekends so they wouldn't bother her. My dad's parents didn't really know he was dating until he was basically engaged. My grandfather often recalled that his father, a farmer, only ever really had one conversation with him that wasn't ordering him around. My other grandmother was sent to work on an aunt's family farm at 13 and saw her parents only a few times after that.

I really liked _Hold on to your kids_. It made perfect sense to me.

I never said that the 50's, 60's or 70's was the ideal. To me the ideal would be an attentive sahm more like continuum conceptish than Mad Men.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtoS* 

Karamom--so you do spend more than one hour away from your children?

Who do you leave them with? In my case, I have NO babysitter, no family no friends to take dd. Then what? I am not allowed to go out because I have no family to care for DD?

Or, is it okay that I have hired two preschool teachers that are loving and caring to watch DD for 7 hours a week?

I usually leave the kids with dh for an average of about 3 hours a week. Then I have a couple hours at night when they go to bed and my mom watches them a couple hours a month.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama* 
Have you been to a good preschool?

No, your right. I have never visited a preschool.

I have to admit your posts are making me feel like a really crummy person. I guess I am just a judgy b****. Maybe that is why I have no friends. The thing is if I admit preschool is ok I have to admit that my ds may be better off there. I've had several people tell me he would be. He is very social and I have a hard time fulfilling those needs. But the thought makes me feel absolutely awful. I want to be that super mom. I would have to let go of the ideal I have been holding for a couple years. We actually live across the street from an elementary school and in the evenings we like to go over there and play. Last night while we were there I was thinking about this thread and I looked inside the classroom window and I just started crying because I felt that maybe I had been wrong and ds would be better off in school.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
The thing is if I admit preschool is ok I have to admit that my ds may be better off there. I've had several people tell me he would be. He is very social and I have a hard time fulfilling those needs. But the thought makes me feel absolutely awful. I want to be that super mom. I would have to let go of the ideal I have been holding for a couple years. We actually live across the street from an elementary school and in the evenings we like to go over there and play. Last night while we were there I was thinking about this thread and I looked inside the classroom window and I just started crying because I felt that maybe I had been wrong and ds would be better off in school.

You don't have to admit anything! It's entirely possible to believe preschool is fine YET kids don't HAVE TO GO. Now, IF you're keeping your DS home because YOU don't want to let him go, then yeah, maybe you need to rethink it. I'm really lucky to have a large non-profit mothers' group in my area, so my social DS has had a lot of play with other kids and I haven't *needed* to put him in school for that. Maybe that's all you need right now - a strong group of play friends. Is that a possibility?


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
You don't have to admit anything! It's entirely possible to believe preschool is fine YET kids don't HAVE TO GO. Now, IF you're keeping your DS home because YOU don't want to let him go, then yeah, maybe you need to rethink it. I'm really lucky to have a large non-profit mothers' group in my area, so my social DS has had a lot of play with other kids and I haven't *needed* to put him in school for that. Maybe that's all you need right now - a strong group of play friends. Is that a possibility?

That is what I really really desperately want for both of us but haven't been able to find. I'm sorry I've hijacked this thread with my own issues.


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I really liked _Hold on to your kids_. It made perfect sense to me.

I never said that the 50's, 60's or 70's was the ideal. To me the ideal would be an attentive sahm more like continuum conceptish than Mad Men.

I usually leave the kids with dh for an average of about 3 hours a week. Then I have a couple hours at night when they go to bed and my mom watches them a couple hours a month.

No, your right. I have never visited a preschool.

I have to admit your posts are making me feel like a really crummy person. I guess I am just a judgy b****. Maybe that is why I have no friends. The thing is if I admit preschool is ok I have to admit that my ds may be better off there. I've had several people tell me he would be. He is very social and I have a hard time fulfilling those needs. But the thought makes me feel absolutely awful. I want to be that super mom. I would have to let go of the ideal I have been holding for a couple years. We actually live across the street from an elementary school and in the evenings we like to go over there and play. Last night while we were there I was thinking about this thread and I looked inside the classroom window and I just started crying because I felt that maybe I had been wrong and ds would be better off in school.

My mom stayed at home for part of my childhood and I do remember her cleaning and cooking while I played on my own. Not that it is horrible to do that....and at some point every mom has to clean, cook and run errands.

BUT...being exhausted, sick and pregnant has left me with zero energy. I bring dd swimming, to the park, out for walks, to playdates, to school readiness program etc during the week. And I really appreciate having a reliable 7 hours to plan other things too.

BUT...if I had a reliable *village* then I would probably have even looked into preschools. So, if you have a reliable village you should be happy and very thankful....it doesn't happen that way for everyone.

I have toured a couple of preschools, and some were just not suited for me, but the one I chose is really really nice. Tonnes of activites, sensory activities, child involvement in acitivities, outside play, walks, songs, stories, and fun learning experiences. Not to mention that my daughter looks forward to seeing her friends. There are two teachers, a cook and 4 children total.

My older daughter is in regular school. Some people enjoy homeschooling, and have a great social support system to do this. I have no real desire to homeschool (personal choice). She has a good teacher and an EA. I am involved in the parent council, and a fundraising committee that is going to build a playground, there is a fruit and veggie program in the school, they also bring them to the community center for swimming lessons and gymnastics lessons (which alot of our students would never be able to experience if it weren't that there is a fee of $30 a year to attend these lessons, and the parents don't have to pay if they don't have the money...which alot don't). They have two nutritional breaks, two outside times, gym time, library time, French classes, dance lessons etc. I KNOW that *I* wouldn't be able to do all that. (Not that there aren't parents that can't....I am only speaking for myself).

So....you don't have to be a super mom, but for some moms we are better moms if we have small breaks.....


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

KARASMOM--oh, I almost forgot. Definitely don't feel you have to send your child to preschool or school. It is a personal decision and moms have to decide what is best for their family.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I really liked _Hold on to your kids_. It made perfect sense to me.

I never said that the 50's, 60's or 70's was the ideal. To me the ideal would be an attentive sahm more like continuum conceptish than Mad Men.

Well...I'm skeptical of the Continuum Concept as a life or even childrearing philosophy because of the whole 'noble savage' thing and also because the supposedly peaceful Yekuana warring with the supposedly awful Senema (edited), etc. Not I don't think we can always learn but...for me taking a remote tribe and deciding they're nirvana just isn't for me. I also didn't think it was great anthropology anyway.

But that's me.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
No, your right. I have never visited a preschool.

I have to admit your posts are making me feel like a really crummy person. I guess I am just a judgy b****. Maybe that is why I have no friends. The thing is if I admit preschool is ok I have to admit that my ds may be better off there. I've had several people tell me he would be. He is very social and I have a hard time fulfilling those needs. But the thought makes me feel absolutely awful. I want to be that super mom. I would have to let go of the ideal I have been holding for a couple years. We actually live across the street from an elementary school and in the evenings we like to go over there and play. Last night while we were there I was thinking about this thread and I looked inside the classroom window and I just started crying because I felt that maybe I had been wrong and ds would be better off in school.

No - you don't have to send your son to preschool at all and I'm sure you're a great mom. If you think he would like more social stuff there are tons of ways to do that whether you do preschool or not. I think it is always brave to consider whether what you're doing now is right or not, but I don't think you have to decide it's all wrong.

Gently, it is fine. You sound like you're looking for a perfect ideal but - you are your kid's perfect mom whether he's in preschool or not you know.

And maybe the potential mom friends in your area just have bad taste.









It's just that I don't think there is one ideal way, and as I said I myself am particularly suspicious of the one-mom-at-home-meeting-needs-all-day-and-night-long model.


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Thanks for the kind words.

You are totally totally right that I hold myself up to a perfect ideal. Then I always feel awful and like a total failure when I don't live up to it. I know logically that I won't be able to live up to it but I still convince myself I should. Not sure how to change that.

I know that I really don't want to send my son to preschool. But I really need to work on my village. I don't feel that I really need more time away from my kids but I really really need people to talk to. Then I won't be bringing up all my problems on message boards and looking like a crazy person.







I actually think that a lot of the reason I have trouble making friends even though I try to get out and meet people is because I always assume they are judging me and think I'm not fit to be their friend for one reason or another.

Thank you for listening to my problems and I'm sorry I totally derailed the thread.









ETA: Yeah, I think I need to just stop posting here as I'm sure you all don't want to read anymore about my issues.


----------



## ~PurityLake~ (Jul 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Pickle* 
So, just curious: Is it the "thing" nowadays to send children as young as 12 or 18 months to preschool?

I am flabbergasted at all these stay-at-home moms I'm running into IRL who think that they are giving their babies an advantage by sending them to preschool before they're even 2! Some think that they have let their children fall behind if they weren't in preschool by 3!

After staying home with my first 2 kids, I went back to work full time when my DD was 18 months and I put her in a preschool. She has liked it a lot. I'm happy with it and I think it is a great place for her. I would even venture to say that she is learning a lot (it is an awesome Montessori preschool.) But, were I not working, I would never have dreamed of putting her in school before age 3. Am I just an old fogey with an outdated mentality? Is this really the new normal?

Is there some new research out that demonstrates the benefits of preschool for 1-2 year olds that I just haven't heard about?

I'm a SAHM and I wouldn't dream of putting my children into school until they are at least 5 years old, it's not even required they attend any kind of school (public, homeschool, etc.) in this state until they are 9 and are only required to remain in formal education until they are 16. I spend quite some time with them reading, drawing, educational websites, creative play, etc. They learn without going to some goal-driven preschool in their lives. I wanted to be here for them, I didn't want to ship them off to someone else. That kind of defeats the purpose of being a SAHM, imo.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Purity♥Lake~* 
I'm a SAHM and I wouldn't dream of putting my children into school until they are at least 5 years old, it's not even required they attend any kind of school (public, homeschool, etc.) in this state until they are 9 and are only required to remain in formal education until they are 16. I spend quite some time with them reading, drawing, educational websites, creative play, etc. They learn without going to some goal-driven preschool in their lives. I wanted to be here for them, I didn't want to ship them off to someone else. That kind of defeats the purpose of being a SAHM, imo.

I find it funny you qualify the 'websites' with educational but then make a big deal about goal-driven preschool.







I think we all have goals for our kids and whether preschool (in general or particular) fits in or not is just a matter of goals that mesh - play based, outdoor preschools, co-ops, whatever.

I did want to address SAH choices a bit though. I don't personally believe there is one reason to stay home any more than there is one reason to work. I can think of a few reasons just off the top of my head:

economic - if someone's earning potential is lower, it may make more sense to stay home
pragmatic - if one spouse is chasing a big dream or works long hours it may mean the household doesn't run without someone more focused on that
the quite opposite reason - I know people who have chosen to stay home in the school-aged years precisely to be availble to TAKE their kids to lessons or care
mental, emotional, or physical illness or burnout
hating a job and deciding the extra money is not worth it
extended family obligations like eldercare
Personally I don't think SAH parents need to invest in preschool - but I don't think there's any reason not to either. Sometimes "being there" for our kids is all about being AVAILABLE (sick days, etc.) but letting them go other places. That can be a very warm feeling too.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 

No, your right. I have never visited a preschool.

I have to admit your posts are making me feel like a really crummy person. I guess I am just a judgy b****. Maybe that is why I have no friends. The thing is if I admit preschool is ok I have to admit that my ds may be better off there. I've had several people tell me he would be. He is very social and I have a hard time fulfilling those needs. But the thought makes me feel absolutely awful. I want to be that super mom. I would have to let go of the ideal I have been holding for a couple years. We actually live across the street from an elementary school and in the evenings we like to go over there and play. Last night while we were there I was thinking about this thread and I looked inside the classroom window and I just started crying because I felt that maybe I had been wrong and ds would be better off in school.

YOu don't have to admit it's okay FOR YOU. I think people are just trying to point out that they are not holding pens we throw our children in while we flit about our lives







They can be wonderful, community-building places. Our world filled with new families, people to spend time with at parks and pools, people who could rely on each other to drop off a hot meal when Mom throws her back out, or pick up and entertain someone's child for a few hours whille Mom is recovering from pneumonia, etc.

I always thought daycare/preschool is okay. Yet, I didn't send my child until he was almost 4.


----------



## Birdie B. (Jan 14, 2008)

What an interesting thread! I admit, I used to think along the same lines as the OP. We are sacrificing for me to SAH, and I can't imagine _paying_ money, that we don't have, to send my daughter away to be cared for by other people. Certainly if I worked, we would utilize daycare/preschool, but I didn't become a SAHM to send my daughter away.

However, now that she's almost 2, and I'm contemplating baby #2, I _totally_ get it!







I can see myself needing a break, at least a few days a week, with 2 or more children. And as my daughter gets older and needs more structure and social interaction, I think some sort of preschool setting would benefit her. As it turns out, she has special needs, and we will be sending her to pre-K next year so she can continue to receive the services she needs (Early Intervention only covers her until age 3).

Lastly, I have no intention of homeschooling, so I don't have a problem with "institutionalized" settings for learning. Hopefully we can find a play-based preschool that allow plenty of free time, but I am not opposed to school learning. That's just us though. I can see why other people feel differently.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

I didn't want to do daycare, either. Then I had a kid with special needs who absolutely THRIVES in a structured environment with same aged kids.

DD used to be terrified to the point of shaking when other kids would come too close to her. She was an only child until this month, and weekly playgroup, playground, library, Music Together, hanging out with family with kids, etc- didn't help. It wasn't ENOUGH. She started preschool at 3 and literally never looked back. The child couldn't have cared less that DH and I were leaving her there with STRANGERS. She loved those strangers. She bonded to them and now is much more social with people outside our family. She has gained vocabulary she never would have. She has become friendly with other kids, at a snail's pace, but at least it's a pace!! She would immediately be excited and engaged with DCP and all the new! toys! every time I dropped her off at preschool. And all of that 100,000% prepared her for full day kindy this year. She is severely speech delayed, but since starting kindy, comes home and has verbal explosions. She narrates how she's playing with her toys. She gets OT and PT at school as well. There isn't one right way to raise every child. Always keep an open mind.


----------



## Hannah32 (Dec 23, 2009)

I'm definitely in the pro-preschool camp. It will depend on whether or not we can afford it. However, I believe that separation is a healthy part of development for a child and for the parent. That's just my take.


----------



## blazer (May 6, 2007)

Pre-school, play school, moms morning out..it is all the same imho.
At my sons preschool they do have 1-2 days "mom's morning out" classes for infants to 2 year olds that go from 9-1, nothing structured, you drop them off and pick them up on the parents schedule they want but the young toddler and older 2's do have nap time between 11-12:45 PM.
But it is fun for the kiddos and conveinent for the mom's when there are older siblings.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

I think that I'll go against the grain a bit and say that preschool at 2 (my DD started at about 2 years and 2 months) benefited her greatly. I definitely could not say that it was "all for me." In fact, it was kind of a PITA for me. It was expensive, cut into the time I had to do things, and meant that her baby brother spent far too long in the car driving to her school and back 2x a day. But I would definitely do it again.

IME most 2 year olds are very social little creatures who thrive under structure, love exploring, and are very ready to move beyond just the confines of the home. A few generations ago and for every generation before that, a child that age wouldn't have been tied to mom's apron strings in the home, but sent out to play all day with all the other kids in the village, being watched by slightly older kids, while Mom got her work done. That's really not an option for most people in the US anymore, so we sent her to a formal preschool instead.

Parallel play starts at about 2, and cooperative play at about 3, so it was really fascinating to watch the way she played and who she played with transform. She learned so much about respecting other people's bodies and games. It became very frustrating to her when her non-preschool friends and her brother didn't listen to her when she respectfully told them to not touch what she was playing with. I loved hearing her tell her brother "No, this is my work. I will find you some work of your own to do." (It was a Montessori program, so work was the word that they used). And then she'd go off to the shelf and find him a toy. Of course, by the time she got back he had totally wrecked whatever she was doing! Ah, the travails of being a big sister to a toddler.







But, I'm sorry, there's NO WAY I would have gotten her that "socialized" at dealing with this sort of conflict at home or at a playgroup where everything is just a free for all and all us moms are sitting in the corner sipping coffee while the kids trash the host's playroom. And not that there's anything wrong with that (we did that too!), but she was definitely ready for the social aspects of a preschool and really blossomed in a way that I know she would not have at home.

As for the "academics," I LOVED them! She came home with new songs, and even though I usually didn't understand most of what she sang at first (I'd be googling based on the few words I could catch) they were very important to her and I think that learning songs is so valuable for so many reasons. She did art projects every day (my house was overflowing with art). They had a Spanish teacher who sang songs with them, and it really is amazing how perfect DD's accent is, having started at such a young age. We're at no loss for books around here, but she'd get so excited at the library or bookstore when she recognized a book from school.

So that's my take on preschool for 2 year olds. I'd never say that someone who doesn't want to should their child, but at the same time I also refuse to sign on to the "it's all for the mom" team. Because it really wasn't that much of a break for me. It was a great experience for her, though.


----------



## Rosebud1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Lach,

You (along with this thread) have really provided me some food for thought. I am a SAHM that has not enrolled my LO (almost 3) in Preschool yet. My mindset was very much like.... throughout human history, children have not had preschool and have been just fine! I have seen Preschool as a pushing down of the academic standards, particularly through my work as a Kindergarten teacher. I have observed skills that were previously taught in Kindergarten now being taught in Pre-K. I also have really enjoyed my time with my child, and was loath to give it up, thinking, they are only so little for so long!

THAT SAID..... your points are very salient. I cannot compare my child to other children in history or other countries, in which they would be playing more independently, surrounded by other children, and monitored by other adults, or more likely, older children. As much as I love being home, there is a solitary aspect that can be challenging (my child is an only) for me and, at times, for my daughter. There are times I feel in this isolation, that she needs a bit more than I alone can give. I am also impressed with the fact that her peers seem to absolutely love preschool.

So....thank you for your insight.


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

I think that pre-school for toddlers can be ok, and I think a part-time pre-school for stay at home moms can have a lot of benifits for the mom and the child. All in all, I would rather have a community where kids have a number of people to look after them and look out for them, a fair bit of freedom, and other kids to play with at various times, but a good care setting, either in an institution or a home, can give many of the same benifits. Although I think there are some kids who really don't do well in those settings - I didn't, and I really suffered in kimdergarten too - I'd have been much better home or something close to it.

I am not crazy about the use of the term school, because there is a trend toward lowering formal academics, and I think that is very negative, especially when we are already sending them to big school at quite a young age. I think it is better if everyone has clear expectations that early childhood learning is not "school' type academic learning.

I do have concerns about the way our day-cares are run. To really stand in for a family or village situation, I think small classes, mixed ages, caregivers that are consistent over several years, and lots of outside play in nature if at all possible are really important. But we tend to see kids grouped in same age groups; in bigger classes, even though the student teacher ratio may be good they group the kids and teachers together; a high turn-over among daycare workers; and outdoor play often seems to be centered on play structures.


----------



## jesiyvonne (Sep 24, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karamom* 
I'm sorry I don't think my post was clear. I didn't mean that you should not ever be away from your children for more than an hour a week. What I meant was that I would not feel comfortable leaving my children in an *institutionalized* setting for more than an hour.

What is your definition of an institutionalized setting? Not setting any fires here, just interested.


----------



## Girlprof (Jun 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bluegoat* 
\

I am not crazy about the use of the term school, because there is a trend toward lowering formal academics, and I think that is very negative, especially when we are already sending them to big school at quite a young age. I think it is better if everyone has clear expectations that early childhood learning is not "school' type academic learning.

I do have concerns about the way our day-cares are run. To really stand in for a family or village situation, I think small classes, mixed ages, caregivers that are consistent over several years, and lots of outside play in nature if at all possible are really important. But we tend to see kids grouped in same age groups; in bigger classes, even though the student teacher ratio may be good they group the kids and teachers together; a high turn-over among daycare workers; and outdoor play often seems to be centered on play structures.

I have read this thread with interest. Just up front, my DH and I both work full time. Both our kids started preschool/daycare/whatever you want to call it at around 9 months.

I wanted to talk about the question of what to call it. I think many parents call it school for a couple of reasons. First, sending your kids to "preschool" is regarded as good and helpful. Sending your kids to "daycare" is often regarded as neglecting them. Who wants to have it hinted that they are neglecting their kids?

We always say "school" and always have. We may have said it with a bit of a chuckle when the kids were quite young. On the other hand, we all leave the house in the morning for "school". My DH and I both work at a university so we are also going to school. And, I definitely regard what children do - i.e., play - as their "work". It's their "job" to explore the world doing the kid stuff: running around, painting, reading and chewing on books, learning how to get along with each other.

I quoted the above post both because of the school/daycare question and because that description of a family/village situation (mixed ages, lots of outside time, stable caregivers over time) pretty much sums up the "institutionalized" setting of our daycare/preschool.

Obviously each family should do what works best for them. But I do think we can help each other as women and as mothers by trying to reserve judgment about what other families are up to. Happy to see that that is pretty much the tone of this thread.


----------



## c'est moi (Sep 8, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EVC* 
Well, I do agree to some extent; however, I think the label "daycare" vs. "pre-school" is also sometimes based on the qualifications of the care providers. For example, dd went to "pre-school" starting at around 18 months. It was totally play-based and could legimitately be referred to as daycare. BUT the care providers were all trained in early childhood education, some with masters degrees and teaching credentials. They ALL held at least a BA and had completed a certain number of required education courses. For that--out of respect for the caretakers' training and qualifications as teachers--I believe it was referred to as a pre-school, rather than a daycare.

Just my two cents....

coming back to this because i toured a local "school" today that serves infants at 6 weeks through ready 4K programming. my daughter actually attended this school last year for a time when i was in school and now i'm thinking about putting her back in a few mornings a week.

i thought about your post as i toured. i get why they call themselves a school even though they too are play based. they aim for low 1:4 adult child ratios and usually meet them. this is almost half the ratio required. also, the teachers really are educators and not just child care providers. as a licensed teacher, this means something to me. it doesn't mean you have to be a licensed educator to be able to provide EXCELLENT child care, but i appreciate the additional credentials.
i've really appreciated this thread. it helped me think through my options very carefully.


----------



## MissNo (Jul 24, 2009)

In our state, pre-school starts at 3 years old. Anything younger than that is day care. I don't feel it helps me to judge what other people do with their kids, unless it is dangerous to the child. If a person needs a few hours a week to themselves and the child is thriving, so be it.


----------

