Kip Powick Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 There has been much ado about the school system in Ontario and in particular ….all day kindergarten for 4 year olds which starts this September. As well, the parents can pay a fee and drop the kids off earlier than the regular school hours and pick them up at a later than end of school day. Many parents are all for this new enterprise, will accelerate their children’s schooling , nothing but plusses for everyone, (that is a 4 year olds parents talking) On the other had, there are many, and I would probably would include myself, that say when do kids have the time to be just be kids?? I entered school at 6 years old, grade one. My kids all did the same thing. The kids are all out there and doing quite well and although they all went to university, they did not endure 14-15 years of schooling prior to university and more importantly we managed to grow together as a family. I guess one of the very important facts in our family was that one parent did stay home. The argument can be made that both parents have to work now, in order to get the “ stuff” they want and live the life style they want…..are their aspirations too high at this point in their life, or is this just the trickle-down of today’s society. Just throwing it out there but do many of you support “all day” school when a child reaches 4 years or do you lean toward what many feel, that this new system is really “day care” in a different suit. My understanding is that this new system will cost Ontario taxpayers close to 1.2 billion/year when fully implemented in about two years but, personally, tax dollars toward eductaion is a good thing ...but at 4 years old?? Comments??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireFox Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Hi Kip, My wife teaches a K to 1 split class and her school has been selected to start full time K next school year (B.C.). Presently her class is doing it on a trial basis. IMHO, generally speaking Kindergarten kids aren't ready for full time school. They usually start falling asleep at their desks in the afternoon. Unfortunately a lot of parents use it as a form of cheap daycare, saving around $600 a month per child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's a terrible idea IMO. I'm with Kip, let the kids be kids. Better for them to get some exercise, run around, use their imagination instead of becoming "students" at this age. This is just an easing into state run daycare, pretty soon they will suggest two and three year olds would "benefit" from early education. Bah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Absolutely terrible! As GateKeeper mentioned it is nothing but a form of cheap daycare for parents. At the very least parents should have an option to keep it at half a day. Living overseas until last year we had our son (5 at the time) in a British system school where they went all day. Even at that age it was too much and he would fall asleep before dinner. Kindergarten age kids do not have the attention and need to go all day long. There is NO proven benefit to earlier age education. The Swedes start school much later than we do in Canada yet they perform as well (or better) at the end of schooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Good conversation starter Kip, I am with you in that I think all day kindergarten is a bad idea and will opt out if it makes it to Alberta (opt out my kids, not me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The Ontario government is essentially bankrupt and they go ahead and do this. Ever heard of restraint? Getting your finances in order? McGuinty just doesn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I suspect it's an attempt at a solution for all those parents who had a hard time with half days for kindergarten kids.... Who can work half days? So they had to get babysitters, or daycare centres to pick their little ones up... Yep. It's subsidized day-care. Many families can't afford one parent staying home. I know we couldn't. It's not a matter of choice, it's just economics. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone believing it's best for their education... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Bot of my kids (6 and 11) went to Kindergarden all day. mind you it was every other day but was all day long. Neither of them had issues with it. Yes it also helps alleviate some of the daycare cost which is also welcomed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Is the enrolment necessary or is it voluntary on the part of the parent? Someone told me the earliest age being proposed is two? That seems pretty ridiculous given the state of potty training of some two year olds. I imply no obvious reference to anyone posting here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I imply no obvious reference to anyone posting here! ...now THAT was funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I suspect it's an attempt at a solution for all those parents who had a hard time with half days for kindergarten kids.... Who can work half days? So they had to get babysitters, or daycare centres to pick their little ones up... Yep. It's subsidized day-care. Many families can't afford one parent staying home. I know we couldn't. It's not a matter of choice, it's just economics. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone believing it's best for their education... Mitch: regarding not being able to afford to only have one worker in the family. In my experience it seems that for those in the average middle class, it is an option driven solely by needs. - need that 2nd vehicle - need toys (electronics, boats etc) - need an annual vacation at some sun spot - need to upscale housing with each kid having a separate bedroom (children used to share bedrooms) - understandable need for some to keep up their accreditation so that if something happens to their spouse they can go back to their vocation (nursing is a good example of that) without extensive / expensive retraining. - need for the kids to dress in name brand clothing to keep up with the other kids - need to pay for those cell phone that every member of the family must have etc. etc - need to instantly have a house, car etc. Anyway, society today is a need driven society that is quite different from the typical family of the 50s, 60s and the 70s. All day kindergarden is a good / bad example of this. It only serves to free up time for the 2nd worker to work full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 That almost all rings true to me Rattler... I can only think of two people I know who are raising thieir brood with one bread earner... One of them has had to 'moonlight' on his days off (seems easy enough to do on a contract basis, in this business) for the entire 22 years he's been working here. ...and the other has only been doing it for 2 years and is sinking in debt. But you're still probably right, they probably could be living cheaper by renting, but they'd have nothing to offer their kids after grade twelve. Nor, probably, anything to offer them from their 'estate' upon expiry. Most of us, I think, want to give our kids a fighting chance at being a little more comfortable than we've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spreadsheet Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 My wife has been home with the kids since we had our first three years ago. We're doing just fine, even adding money to savings but we also planned ahead and spent 5 years living very frugally to pay off student loans and our mortgage before we had kids. My wife has been thinking about going back to work, but the daycare costs for the two kids would be over $2,000 a month at a couple places we looked. Tough to make enough take home pay to justify that expense and hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 My wife has been home with the kids since we had our first three years ago. We're doing just fine, even adding money to savings but we also planned ahead and spent 5 years living very frugally to pay off student loans and our mortgage before we had kids. My wife has been thinking about going back to work, but the daycare costs for the two kids would be over $2,000 a month at a couple places we looked. Tough to make enough take home pay to justify that expense and hassle. Exactly and with any luck one of you will be home full time when the kids really need you (mostly grade 7 and up). A lot of parents forget the pressures of Jr / Senior high and go back to work once the kids are old enough (12+) to come home on their own. They abandon their teens to being raised by other teens with no practical adult guidance when it is most needed. Parents come home tired from work, supper is prepared and then the family departs to their separate rooms for TV, Homework, Computer work etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 That almost all rings true to me Rattler... I can only think of two people I know who are raising thieir brood with one bread earner... One of them has had to 'moonlight' on his days off (seems easy enough to do on a contract basis, in this business) for the entire 22 years he's been working here. ...and the other has only been doing it for 2 years and is sinking in debt. But you're still probably right, they probably could be living cheaper by renting, but they'd have nothing to offer their kids after grade twelve. Nor, probably, anything to offer them from their 'estate' upon expiry. Most of us, I think, want to give our kids a fighting chance at being a little more comfortable than we've been. Mitch, I guess the problem lies in "more comfortable" Do kids really need you to have more than one car, more than one tv, everyone with their own cell phone etc etc to be comfortable. Not taking aim at you in particular but rather at our culture which has def. evolved into one of "High needs and expectations". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 You're absolutely right, those are wants, not needs. (except that two bread earners usually require two cars, but your point is right, I think.) If we'd kept one parent at home, there is absolutley no doubt in my mind that we'd have survived it, but as I said, the young'uns probably wouldn't be going to university, and we wouldn't be in a house we call our own (a fallacy the bank allows us to hang onto). Our consumerist culture has, I think, been shaped intentionally by those who peddle their wares and those who profit most from our indebtedness. If I'd had my 'druthers, we'd have been in a shack in the woods where nobody else wants to be and no way to know what we were missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 "If I'd had my 'druthers, we'd have been in a shack in the woods where nobody else wants to be and no way to know what we were missing." Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 My wife and I both make a pretty good Salary. We have 2 kids and a house (morgaged). We have 2 cars but cannot make due with 1 due to where we work and schedules. We could not survive on my salary alone even if we did away with the second car. downsizing our house would make no difference since a house half the size would cost more than what I paid for this place. Living just outside YYZ is not cheap and moving farther out is not an option due to cummuting distance. Thankfully with our work schedules My wife gets the kids to school when I have already been at work for 2 hours. I am home at approx the same time as the kids so have plenty of time with them. The fact is that salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living and in the GTA it is not possible to live comfortably on a single income unless that is a very high income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If I'd had my 'druthers, we'd have been in a shack in the woods where nobody else wants to be and no way to know what we were missing. I've expressed the same sentiment to my wife, and her reply was "Fine, go ahead, but you'll be all alone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I agree with what you are saying Rattler but I also agree with what Mitch is saying. I want (don't need) to be able to take vacations both to chill on a beach, and to do things more cultural. I like to do it a lot and I think it benefits my kids. This is just one example of why both myself and my spouse work. Our goal is to have one of us home with our kids by the time they are getting into their teenage years. IMO this is when more structure is needed. Our day care experience has been positive and our kids have liked the friends they have there. I guess at the end of the day we are not ready to make the sacrifices needed to keep one of us at home. It is not a matter of keeping up with the Joneses, we just like the opportunity that having the extra $ affords us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rozar s'macco Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I've got two young kids (3 and 1) and have mixed feelings about this full day thing. Full day unquestionably makes it easier for my wife to work. But I think it best for the kids to be every other day, or mon/wed and every other friday. Full day, every day for a 4 yr old is nuts and I agree, it is subsidised day care; now they're even talking about it going all year! What!! No summers off for the kids?! Talk about stealing away one's childhood. Anywho, with regard to all you "geezers" lamenting about sun vacations and brand name clothing and two cars. All that stuff is much, much cheaper now than what it was when you grew up and your parents couldn't afford it. I'm not necessarily defending the notion that one "needs" a cellphone at age 12, or "needs" brand-name clothing and so on. But on a marginal cost basis brand-name clothing for one, often makes sense. For toddler and infant clothing anyhow, the wal-mart stuff is so crappy, the price hides the true cost. We find Children's Place, Gap, Please Mum, Carter's, Oshkosh, and the like on regular 50% off sales, the kids wear it and outgrow it and then because it is a brand-name it is easy to offload at a consignment store or on Kijiji. Nobody wants to buy used walmart or zellers crap. And they look cute in the process for, I'd argue, less total cost than buying the discount brands. Two cars is hardly a luxury in today's world. In fact I'd argue that only the truly rich can afford to have only one car. Live and work in downtown Toronto and sure, you can subway to work. But unless you can afford a $500K home, you are out in the burbs and our transit system in this country just doesn't accomodate that reality. For airport workers like us it's a virtual impossibility to not have a car to get to work, because in YYZ's embarassing case particularly, transit doesn't reach the airport. Hello? GO train to YYZ? IS THAT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT?! My home, purchased for $330K is by any measure a fantastic family home. Take that budget to High Park, where I could bus to work, and it is $800K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Just be glad you don't work out of YVR, then you would know something about unaffordability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.