A Simpler Idea
October 12th, 2006 | by Craig |Here’s some more mission creep from the public schools.
I have a pretty radical idea. It’s crazy, but it just might work.
How about maybe taking a job that allows you to be home when your kids get home?
I know, I know. It’s crazy.
Meanwhile, enrollment in private schools (at least one) continues to grow.
23 Responses to “A Simpler Idea”
By Sarpy Sam on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Parents, home with their children. That’s a damn radical idea Craig. It’s going to be a hard sell. People might think the parents care for their children. Can’t have that.
By Gman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
My friend and I (I’m “conservative”, he’s “liberal”) were lamenting the fact that parents don’t invest time in their childrens’ education (it takes more than just the 4 walls at school to educate a child). I remarked that I don’t think that parents don’t want to make that investment, they just don’t have the time to. Most of them have traded the achievement of a high standard of living (in material terms) for quality time with their children. And, yes, Shane, I realize some parents have to work two jobs to make ends meet. I would argue that they are a minority. My wife stays home with the kids because we value that. It’s a sacrifice (trust me). Why do we do it? When I grew up my mom was there and it meant the world to me.
By Gman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Indeed, the schools are being transformed further into (free?) babysitting institutions. Do after-school progams cost money? If so, the taxpayers pay for them. Hence, the tax dollars of parents who actually take care of their children after school pay for the after-school programs of parents who don’t. Tragedy of the commons?
By TMM on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Researchers say that 14.3 million children are home alone and unsupervised after school (including 40,000 kindergarteners)
While I agree mission creep is an unfortunate reality for our schools, who on earth has their 5 year old come home alone? That sounds crazy to me, bordering on endangerment.
By Craig's Spousal Unit on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I was thinking the same thing, TMM. I’m hoping that there’s at least an older sibling to watch after the younger one.
By Dani on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for linking to the BCS parent night meeting, Craig. I will tell you one thing, uninvolvement doesn’t seem to be an option. Another challenge is keeping the tuition down while simultaneously offering a great education, which occupies quite a bit of my time as a BACET trustee, though Lowell Duffner’s recent donation of $2.5 mil (on top of a previous $2 mil) sure helps! And am I ever happy the stock market is up, up, up. We have a lot to be grateful for, with the wonderful parents, kids and donors that keep the system afloat. In other parts of the country, Catholic schools are taking a lot of flak for being elitist. Well, if you want to avoid that, everyone has to work.
We do operate four daycares, which are full. One is at MSUB, and one is at the Primary building, which is obviously very popular for after-school care. There are some people who really do need them, for whatever reason, though I agree there are plenty of people who are making more of a lifestyle choice than anything when it comes to child care. But, most people do the best they can, IMHO, and don’t want to put their kids in daycare.
The other option of course, is not to have any (or very many) kids. This is what my sister has done, living in CA where everything costs a fortune. She used to be HR director at some computer-related firm. She has one kid. None of her friends have more than two. I think the US is the only Western country with a birth rate above replacement, which does not bode well for us in the long haul. So, if I have to say, do we want kids in after-school care or daycare, or no kids, I pick the former.
By Dani on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I guess what I am saying, is don’t be too quick to judge. I really believe most parents do their very best for their kids, and would like to be home with them if they could.
By Matt Singer on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, people should take those jobs that offer flexible hours, decent pay, and good benefits.
Wal-Mart has those, right?
Oh, and as for those 5-year-olds coming home to empty houses, I suppose it’s unreasonable to think that welfare reform might have anything to do with that. Right or wrong, there are unintended consequences to rightwing changes in policy, too.
By Dani on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
One important statistic is that 40% of all pregnancies are unplanned, in the U.S. (I don’t know why- not sure anyone does). So I do think people end up in situations that they never anticipated, like working for Wal-Mart while raising a child.
Clinton enacted welfare reform, BTW. Statistically, it seems to have worked pretty well. But, I think it has only succeeded due to the enormous number of private entities that exist to help those that fall through the welfare cracks. Private entities are more able to screen for the people that really need help, & attach responsibility to the money or service that is provided.
For example, last weekend my family helped the IHN (Interfaith Hosiptality Network). It was our turn to cook, for a group that was living at St. Bernard’s this week. Seven kids and five adults- two married couples and one single mother. We don’t get into the “why” of their situation- and they go to work, school, or look for work ALL DAY LONG. Habitat for Humanity (Jimmy Carter’s favorite foundation) is another good example of private partnerships to help people who need it, on the condition that they help build the house.
How would a government program ever be able to do any of this?
They wouldn’t, it would cost too much. Private entities rely on volunteers. Also, unscrupulous people figured out how to “work” the system. That’s why Clinton signed the reform bill.
I do believe the vast majority of people try to help themselves and their families in the best way they know how. I don’t believe the government is the best helper when they stumble. I’d rather give my money and time to organizations that directly help people rather than waste it on government inefficiencies.
By Gman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Matt, are you capable — really — of leaving Walmart out of your comments? What does Walmart have to do with this discussion? I’m sure you’ll provide some association, but you could also spare us. Let me guess, though: Walmart is the reason parents need two jobs to make ends meet.
By Matt Singer on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
No, Wal-Mart just happens to be the nation’s biggest employer is increasingly harsh to flexible schedules.
Wal-Mart is emblematic of what is happening to the labor market in this country. And the changes do not happen to be particularly family friendly. I find it disingenuous to tell people to just live with what the market offers and then tell them to get jobs that give them family time. The vast majority of jobs in this country don’t. And without policy changes and/or labor unions expanding their influence, that won’t change any time soon.
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Wal Mart or no, how many low or high paying job do you know that comes with the added bonus of flexible hours? Sure, it would be great if everyone could be a computer prgrammer, computer admin, an attorney or married to one. The fact is, that is not the case. As such, is it not reasonable to assume that schools could help provide some gap for parents that need it? Another thing, some parents just don’t care. I will repeat that so that we all hear it:
SOME PARENTS JUST DON’T CARE
That is a cyclic issue. It will keep happening until the cycle is broken. Is it not reasonable to believe that an afterschool program that keeps the children off the streets, away from the elements, and out of the latchkey apartment can be a positive influence on our society by helping to break that chain? Is it impossible that this might be a net benefit to our society?
Is it not possible that our government’s responsibility is to provide for or facilitate programs that are a net benefit to society?
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
And yes, Matt did instant message me and say ‘let’s go attack these guys in concert’. That’s what we do.
By R. Alex on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I’ve got to agree with Matt and Shane here. Sometimes circumstances simply do not permit a parent to be home before his or her kids. I can agree with Craig and GMan that a lot of parents fall on the wrong side of the money/family tradeoff, but it’s a social good — not just for those families but for the rest of us — for the kids to have something structured to do after school.
What I would really like to see is having “after school electives”… where the kids can learn a trade or re-take classes that might need retaking.
By Craig on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Shane and I covered this at some length offline this evening, and I think we’ve got the problem solved. Put me in charge of everything and Shane as my trusty lieutenant, and we’ll have ‘er whipped into shape in no time.
Alex, I like your idea. Some of the classes that I think could be taught are financial literacy (which actually should be a requirement) and maybe basic plumbing and heating for when you become a homeowner, etc. At least for the older kids. That’s definitely one to chew on.
By Homestead on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I’ve started to post on this several times but everything I say just makes me sound crabby or whiney…. so I’ll just say this…. current status: two children (ages 2 and 3 months), two parents, mama makes the majority of the $$$ and stays in a job she doesn’t love to keep the flexibility & health insurance, daddy does a job he loves that is dangerous, under-paid and not at all flexible, both parents are over-educated, poor but proud, trying to do the best they can to cover costs and not leave Montana and not go into debt, mama really wants to stay home (or work part-time) to be there for the little ones.
And then I hear…. just stay home….. stop being so selfish….. what, exactly, would you recommend I give up? Food? Heat? Health Insurance? Because it isn’t like eating out or watching cable tv are anywhere in our current budget.
See? Crabby, whiney AND bitchy…. When you and Shane get this all figured out could you drop me an email and let me know the solution?? Thanks.
By Craig's Spousal Unit on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Homestead, I’m curious as to why you had another child 12 months ago if the situation is as bad as you say it is? Are you paying for daycare? Maybe part of the money that you pay into daycare can towards some of those bills. You must have an internet account in order to come here and post on this site. Unless you go to the public library to use their computer, maybe close your account with your provider and save a few bucks there.
Just a few thoughts.
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Mrs Craig,
With all dues respect, if we all waited until we were financially sound to have our chilluns, the population would decline to about 4% replacement. I don’t see a time in the future when I would have enough money to have kids, so we started 8 years ago.
By Craig on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Well, Mr Tammy…
I don’t disagree that some if not most American families aren’t financially set when they start having kids. I do apologize in advance to Homestead if I sounded snarky about that, it wasn’t my intention.
However, I do believe that that if someone really wants to stay at home with their chillun, they will find a way and this is based on whether they want to rent or buy a house, have a new or used vehicle, buy new or second-hand clothes, live on McDonalds or eat boxed mac n cheese, etc, etc, etc…
I’ve been doing this for 6 1/2 years and it’s just now starting to get a little easier.
By Craig on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Crap…forgot to log Craig’s name off…
-Cammy
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Mrs, Agreed.
By Homestead on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
No snarkiness noted. I absolutely hear what you are saying about the internet account ($20/month) and daycare (it will be $34/day for two when I go back to work) and a variety of other modern conveniences we’ve all convinced ourselves are needs and not wants. And I do wish I had a latte-a-day habit I could cut and automatically save myself $4/day and I’m always looking for ways to save money but we survive with a carefully crafted budget that is comfortable for us, but very modest.
I’m not saying the situation is exactly… bad. Just….. frustrating…. although reading my previous post I did come across as all doom-n-gloom and poor-me. We have health insurance and no debt… and I’m thankful for that….but that wouldn’t be the case if I didn’t work. I’ve run the numbers 94-ways-to-Monday and we are right on the cusp of being able to make it happen with me at 3/4 time…. but not quite.
And as far as waiting to have kids until financial stability is achieved… well, what the heck does that mean? We are able to keep them happy & healthy but it requires two incomes.
And the second child was born exactly 12 weeks ago…. hence my current sensitivity (and, I hope, an explanation of my current whiney-ness) to this issue…. I DON’T want to go back to work next week….
By Craig's Spousal Unit on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Well, I hope that something opens up for you so that you’ll be able to stay home with your children. It’s a great job. The hours are lousy, the pay stinks, you don’t get any vacation time, but I think it’s the best job you’ll ever have.
Good Luck!