Costs to raise children: $1,530

Peaceful_Warrior said:
Elimination Communication
co-sleeping
Attachment Parenting
Unschool

Okay, I don't have kids (my dogs and cats cost a fortune--try close to $1400 in 2006), but I'll bite--what in the heck are you talking about? I mean, I know people with kids, heck, I even know people who homeschool, but as a student of popular culture, I must know.....what are these things? :D
Sarah
 
This is the cliff's notes version:

Elimination Communication:
Paying attention to babies' signals (i.e. body language, vocalizations) to know *before* they will have to pee/poo, and

then hold them over the toilet so they go there instead of in a diaper.

Minimizes diaper changes by up to 100%, thus providing considerable savings. We've been doing this for two months, and so

far have gone from washing diapers once per day to once every 3-5 days. Yesterday we even left him without a diaper for

several hours, and though he peed on us once (while feeding, so he was distracted), he also communicated to us twice that

he needed to go, and so we held him over.

We have learned that once he signals to us he needs to go, he will actually wait for us to take him to the toilet, undress

and take his diaper off and hold him over, before he will start to pee/poo.

Co-sleeping:
The baby sleeps in the bed with the mother instead of in a separate crib or bassinet. If breastfeeding, this helps both

mother and baby sleep because they don't have to fully wake (or sometimes wake at all) to breastfeed. Also, when coupled

with Elimination Communication, it means the parents are more responsive to the babie's needs.

It also reduces nighttime crying, thus allowing partners to sleep better. There are a lot of things to be aware of when

co-sleeping, so research must be done to ensure the safety of the child. However, again been doing this for 2 months and

has been very helpful.

Also a money saver because a bassinet, crib, or nursery are unnecessary.

Attachment Parenting
This is keeping the baby with one or both parents at almost all times. By giving the baby all of the attention it wants

in the early stages of life, it develops healthy attachment to parents by realizing the parents will always be there when

the child needs them. This gives children the confidence to venture out on their own, rather than wondering if they'll be

left stranded / alone. Babies cry much less often... our baby cries maybe for 10 minutes per day, total, because when he

needs anything we are already there paying attention to him so he doesn't have to cry long to get a response.

This also couples very well with Elimination Communication and Co-Sleeping, and again a money saver because a nursery is

unnecessary and the best infant toys are mommy and daddy.

Unschooling
No formal education is provided, and instead children learn through the school of life. Just as nobody ever taught a baby

how to walk or talk... they still learned these things because they wanted and needed to. How might a child learn to read? They hear mom or dad reading to them at night and start to wonder how to do it themselves. Some children learn to read and do math on their own, some ask for help from parents.

What is focused on is not what to learn, but rather, how to learn. This highly enables these children as adults to succeed. Many unschoolers will openly admit to holes in their knowledge base... some may not know much about history, or another about geography or government, but they all readily state that if they wanted/needed the knowledge they would have no problems with it.

This also encourages parents to be in tune and understanding of children's interests. If a child likes trains, then trains may be used to help teach about math, or a trip to the train museum in Sacramento, CA might help combine history with their interests.

By keeping children interested in the process of learning, they also tend to develop a lifelong love for that process.

This saves money because public schools now require kids to bring supplies in underfunded districts, no costs for private school, and no costs for homeschool materials (which can be expensive).

As a side note, NORDS has personally known some unschoolers so he may be able to give some more realistic perspective on the subject.... everything I know about this is, so far, from reading information and interacting on mailing lists.
 
Did you read the Freakonomics chapter on obsessive parenting? While not an eye-opener, the studies presented call into question some commonly and uncommonly held beliefs.
 
Thanks, Peace, for the cliff notes! Must be pretty time consuming stuff--I've done some of that when housetraining the dogs, but I think it is easier to just put the dog out in the backyard than hanging a baby over the toilet! :)

I sleep with some of the dogs, and they keep me awake all the time--but maybe babies don't take up as much space or lay sideways across your legs!

I wish I could have been unschooled instead of tormented all those years...sounds like a more interesting way to learn.

Most interesting detail...thanks for enlightening me to these novel approaches!

LOL!: Freakonomics is such a great book--I love the part on kid's names!

Sarah
 
mclesters said:
Thanks, Peace, for the cliff notes! Must be pretty time consuming stuff--I've done some of that when housetraining the dogs, but I think it is easier to just put the dog out in the backyard than hanging a baby over the toilet! :)

Ironically, it doesn't take all that much time. Ask yourself what would be quicker:
- You sitting on a toilet, waiting to go. -- OR -- you pooping in your underwear and then cleaning up and changing your underwear?

mclesters said:
I wish I could have been unschooled instead of tormented all those years...sounds like a more interesting way to learn.

Me too! Though the first time I heard about this philosophy, I was highly skeptical. It took me months of educating myself to finally get to the comfort level I now have with it.
 
Another debate on public vs private schooling. Unfortunately there's not much of a way to do a repeatable double-blind control studies with 50,000 or so kids.

We've already paid for the public schooling, so why not do both?

In our case our kid's behavior had concerned me that we'd have to be ready to homeschool (Sears' "Your Fussy Baby and High-Needs Child") so I dug into it. Later I realized that we don't have to do one or the other-- she's thriving at school and we deal with the problems when they crop up. We homeschool every time a teachable moment presents itself. If she wasn't thriving then we'd be able to drop back to homeschooling, and when she's feeling sorry for herself we point out that we're happy to do so. Somehow school has always managed to appeal to her more than the concept of "Mom & Dad's Unschool".

I've met a lot of homeschooled kids. Some were temperamentally unsuited for public schools, others never had a chance to try both systems. They all seemed to turn out fine. Neither institution is a guaranteed success, and as always the most important factor in a kid's education is still the parents.
 
I'm going to go the same route...send him to the very, very good public school, teach him what I can every day, and engage a tutor or additional outside private schooling for any particular topic he either struggles in or demonstrates a strong aptitude for.

If he just turns out to be wonderkind material and the public schools accelerated program cant keep up with him, we'll move him to something private that challenges him and pay for it.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
If he just turns out to be wonderkind material and the public schools accelerated program cant keep up with him, we'll move him to something private that challenges him and pay for it.
"Wunderkind". Yeah, that's what I was thinking-- so much more impressive than "never turns off their brain or their mouth" or "juvenile delinquent". Not that our kid could turn out like that!

Like us, you'll spend the first six months waiting for the principal to tell you that they just can't take it any more...
 
I wouldnt expect it to take that long.

Of course, during the first visit I fully anticipate seeing the "oh thats where it comes from" look on his/her face... :LOL:
 
The way I figure it, if you've got smart, motivated, well educated parents, there's a good chance your kid is going to be a 95th percentile kid in whatever they want to do. Spending big bucks or other resources on pushing them the extra mile might get them to the 98th or 99th percentile, or it might give them a nervous breakdown.

Now, back to teaching my trilingual 1 year old her fourth language... ;)

And structural design principles using her lego blocks...
 
if someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, i apologize, but id dint read the whole thing


What if you factor in the costs your KIDS incure once they are old enough to take care of you? a few months/years in assisted living shoudl even things out quite nicely. and if your kid happens to hit the lotto or sign a multi million $$ sports contract, it was a wise investment ::)
 
Nords said:
Another debate on public vs private schooling. Unfortunately there's not much of a way to do a repeatable double-blind control studies with 50,000 or so kids.

And what would you measure? Whether kids made more money as adults on one track or the other? Whether they became better people?

We're just taking a cursory look at elementary schools at this point.

Public school pros:

1) Lots of resources, like computer labs.
2) Good PE program.
3) Science fairs!

Public school cons:

1) Geared towards addressing the lowest common denominator, which handicaps the teachers.
2) Generally high student/teacher ratios.
3) Your kid is potentially socializing with less-socialized kids.
4) Schools are slow to adopt best practices.

We just looked at one private school. The teachers seemed more "enlightened" and were less burdened with discipline and addressing special needs. The kids were simply better people. No bullies, articulate, engaged, etc.

So, to me, it's not just a matter of addressing potential academic gaps.
 
wab said:
Public school cons:
...
Your cons do not apply to the public schools my area and your pros apply to the private schools around here as well.

Perhaps I can get you to edit your post to put "My" or "Our" in front of "Public"?
 
LOL! said:
Your cons do not apply to the public schools my area and your pros apply to the private schools around here as well.

I guess I don't see how public schools can avoid having to address the needs of *all* kids. Isn't that what "public" means? How can that not be a handicap?
 
The "best" form of schooling is all so subjective anyway. As one poster mentioned, how do we gauge the effectiveness of a particular school?

Do we want to measure
- Total assets at death? (Doesn't account for inheritance)
- Highest ranking titles?
- Total wages earned?
- Total self-generated income? (wages, businesses, investments, etc)
- Ability to network and socialize?
- # of friends?
- Adherance to societal norms?
- The child's happiness at various checkpoints in their lives?
- Other peoples' views/opinions of the children (i.e. from parents, teachers, employers)
- Depth of knowledge about specific academic topics?
- Broad general knowledge about many different academic topics?

There's so many things we could measure or look at, and the choice that is 'best' or 'right' is really just depending on each individual situation and the goals/wants of that particular family.
 
wab said:
I guess I don't see how public schools can avoid having to address the needs of *all* kids. Isn't that what "public" means? How can that not be a handicap?

in some cases they have succeeded and in some cases they have failed i have seen both extremes...

my alma mater (where my son now attends) has excellent programs - academic, social, sports, leadership - seems like the vast majority of kids find a nitch whether it be band, the badminton team or student government, it is an active environment. my son is in special ed and they provide him a great deal of resources and "attention", provide bi-weekly check-ins on his progress from each of his 6 teachers (that is available to any parent, not just special ed)..and the school has over 3000 kids - they are doing a great job.

have also been around pub schools with no resources, little support, crazy teachers and administrators and they think your kid is a genius because they can read in 5th grade (fast forward my kid being in special ed later!)...

the "unevenness" in public education is a huge problem - aside from needs to innovate the pedagogy....
 
wab said:
I guess I don't see how public schools can avoid having to address the needs of *all* kids. Isn't that what "public" means? How can that not be a handicap?
Whether it's fair or not, the public schools that I and my children have attended (completely different parts of the country) group students of similar ability into the same classes. There are even so-called schools within schools. That's one way of addressing the needs of "all" kids.

I will freely admit that public schools in wealthier areas address needs better.
 
wab said:
We didn't move here for the schools, but the idea of taking advantage of an education we already paid for is very compelling. We think she'd get a better education in private schools, but we're trying to convince ourselves that she needs the "real world" exposure that public schools will provide.

She'll get plenty of the real world soon enough. Public education is 1/4 education, 3/4 indoctrination. Avoid it if you can!

Ha
 
justin said:
The way I figure it, if you've got smart, motivated, well educated parents, there's a good chance your kid is going to be a 95th percentile kid in whatever they want to do. Spending big bucks or other resources on pushing them the extra mile might get them to the 98th or 99th percentile, or it might give them a nervous breakdown.

Now, back to teaching my trilingual 1 year old her fourth language... ;)

And structural design principles using her lego blocks...
Yes! I chose private school because the local schools here are not even close. But in the nearby suburbs there are lots of public schools I would not have hesitated to send DD to. DS went to public schools in Long Island and Connecticut and was fine. The private school DD went to was excellent but I was amazed at the attitudes of some of the parents - "helicopter" doesn't even begin to describe them. At some of the other private schools the parents were far worse, according to friends whose children attended them.
 
In Illinois, public elementary and high schools are funded primarily by local real estate taxes. Thus, funding per student varies dramatically from school district to school district with an over three-to-one variation from the lowest to the highest. School quality isn't exclusively dependent on funding, but I think it is an important factor.

Compare a small private elementary school with a religious agenda (that perhaps you don't agree with) to a well funded public elementary school in a prestigious suburb and you'll likely prefer the public school. And, compare a Chicago ghetto school to an expensive and exclusive private school focusing on teaching the academically gifted and you'll likely choose the private school.

You sort of have to do an apples to apples thing...........

Generally, I am a fan of private schools. Almost half of the children in our town attend private schools, despite the public schools being well rated and successful. Most of our private schools are religious affiliated, primarily Catholic. It's estimated that our property taxes would increase by one third if these private schools closed and the public schools had to accomodate almost double the students! Everytime I drive by the local Catholic high school and there is a car wash going on, or whenever their kids are selling something door to door, I always support them............ because they are helping to support me by keeping my property taxes reasonable! Bless their hearts!

I'm also a huge fan of small private colleges.
 
Back
Top Bottom