Caring children under 3

I am writing from Italy. I'm preparing some note to share with other
parents about children caring in the Western countries
I would like to know more about children caring in the USA.
First of all I'd like to know if there exist in the USA kindergardens
for children under 3, managed by Public structures.
If so, how much they cost?

Anyway, are there enough *private* or public kindergardens for
children under 3? How do families deal with children caring when both
parents work?

thanks in advance

Raffaele Valente
Italy


PS
also internet links are welcome
(sorry for my bad English)

"El Bandolero" wrote in message
om...
I am writing from Italy. I'm preparing some note to share with other
parents about children caring in the Western countries
I would like to know more about children caring in the USA.
First of all I'd like to know if there exist in the USA kindergardens
for children under 3, managed by Public structures.

The only federal program I know of is Head Start, for poor families. You can
find out more from their website he
http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/

Some state governments also operate similar programs. In our state, we have
the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, and its website may be
found he
http://www.cted.wa.gov/DesktopDefaul...83&tabindex=55

For state ECEAP, I believe the income guideline for a family of four to be
eligible is $20,000/year. This is about 25% of local area median income. In
other words, the only people who are eligible for these programs are the
very poor. Federal guidelines for Head Start are similar. They are not for
average families.

Anyway, are there enough *private* or public kindergardens for
children under 3?

Generally, the way things work in the USA is that if you have the money, you
can nearly always buy what you need. The question you pose is not the right
one. I think you mean, are there enough *affordable*, *good-quality* child
care options for working parents? Regional varations within the US are
enormous, but I would think the general answer to your question is: No.

How do families deal with children caring when both
parents work?

My kids are older now, but when they were under 5, we did all of the
following at one time or another:

Licensed home day care
Unlicensed home day care
Private preschool
Nanny share

Plus:
Parent ran business from home
Parent was not employed

Of course, none of these received public support -- federal, state, or
local. That's not how things work here.


Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

In article ,
El Bandolero wrote:
I am writing from Italy. I'm preparing some note to share with other
parents about children caring in the Western countries
I would like to know more about children caring in the USA.
First of all I'd like to know if there exist in the USA kindergardens
for children under 3, managed by Public structures.
If so, how much they cost?

Anyway, are there enough *private* or public kindergardens for
children under 3? How do families deal with children caring when both
parents work?

I'll take a stab at this. "Kindergarten" in the USA refers to a program
for children who are 5yo (approximately). These program are generally
free public school programs, though private options also exist. A few
districts have free public programs for 4-year-olds, and even fewer
have free programs for 3-year-olds. However these would be typically
half-day programs, possibly only two or three days/week. This is not
a solution for familiew where both parents work.

For children under 3, and for working parents, what you're talking
about is called "daycare" here. There are not generally public
daycares; they are all private. Costs are highly location-dependent.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

Come on..."Head Start, for poor families"...couldn't you find a more polite,
respectful, dignified way to refer to these UNFORTUNATE families? YOU don't
personally know of these "poor families" situations. That was really
uncalled for-regardless of your good intentions, I, personally, was
offended. I really think you could of just left it at "Head Start" and it
wasn't necessary to add "for poor families". JMHO
--
Mary~
Mom of 2 Sweeties on Earth and 2 Sweeties in Heaven

"Claire Petersky" wrote in message
news:xSigc.5502$hw5.6087@attbi_s53...
"El Bandolero" wrote in message
om...
I am writing from Italy. I'm preparing some note to share with other
parents about children caring in the Western countries
I would like to know more about children caring in the USA.
First of all I'd like to know if there exist in the USA kindergardens
for children under 3, managed by Public structures.

The only federal program I know of is Head Start, for poor families. You
can
find out more from their website he
http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/
snip
Claire Petersky

"Mary" wrote in message
...
Come on..."Head Start, for poor families"...couldn't you find a more
polite,
respectful, dignified way to refer to these UNFORTUNATE families?

The primary definition of poor, out of Merriam Webster's is:

1 a : lacking material possessions b : of, relating to, or characterized by
poverty

I specifically chose that word for its clarity for someone who does not have
English as her first language. I then further defined what I meant by the
term by quantifying it.

YOU don't
personally know of these "poor families" situations. That was really
uncalled for-regardless of your good intentions, I, personally, was
offended.

I am sorry to cause you offence. What word would you have prefered me to use
that would have been equally short and clear for someone whose primary
language is not English?

I really think you could of just left it at "Head Start" and it
wasn't necessary to add "for poor families".

If someone is not from the US, they won't know what Head Start is, or who it
serves. Public child care programs in the US are aimed at a very narrow
segment of the population. Other rich nations are much more likely to use
public funds to benefit the entire population, not just those in lowest
income catagories. I am not sure why it distresses you that I mention that
these programs are only for those families below the poverty line.

I don't think it is impolite to mention that some people don't make as much
money as other people do in this country. In fact, I think it might do us a
lot of good to discuss the inequalities of wealth in our society, and the
consequences of this inequality openly and frankly. I would personally
prefer our leaders to openly acknowledge the consequences of our tax
structure and social programs, rather than pretend that we are all rich, or
are going to get rich, in our lifetimes.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Mary wrote:
Come on..."Head Start, for poor families"...couldn't you find a more polite,
respectful, dignified way to refer to these UNFORTUNATE families? YOU don't
personally know of these "poor families" situations. That was really
uncalled for-regardless of your good intentions, I, personally, was
offended. I really think you could of just left it at "Head Start" and it
wasn't necessary to add "for poor families". JMHO

Head Start is for poor families. They aren't necessarily "unfortunate"
families - they're poor. Maybe you could be specific about the wording
you prefer - I hope it isn't "unfortunate". An "unfortunate" family is
one where a mother of three just died; or where the parents are abusive;
or where every family member suffers from a debilitating disease.
"Unfortunate" doesn't imply anything about income level, which is an
inherent aspect of families whose kids qualify for Head Start. Perhaps
you think "low-income" would be more respectful than "poor". But it's
the same thing.

Clisby

Il Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:32:29 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) ha scritto:

For children under 3, and for working parents, what you're talking
about is called "daycare" here. There are not generally public
daycares; they are all private. Costs are highly location-dependent.

I used the word 'kindergarten' because the Italian translation "asilo"
means either *under* three y.o. children care than 3-6 y.o. children
care.
We don't have special programs. Everybody theoretically can have
access to these public structures. I filled a form and my kid (now 21
months old) has been enrolled in a classification with a score based
on equal parameters for everybody. The problem is that my kid (Elena)
is 157th and available places are 23!
Only when you succed in entering you pay on the base of you income.
Our gross income is about 45,000 EUR (= 53,700 USD) and we should pay
the maximum rate 430 EUR (=513 USD). [Italian taxes are more than
American. Actually we get 34,000 EUR (=40,000 USD)]

But we know people that pays 30 EUR a month!
They are *poor* for Tax Bureau. Nobody is really *poor* in Italy. Lots
of people escapes taxes, mainly indipendent workers like (e.g.
artisans, professionals, etc)

Private structures don't have much more places. We hardly have
recently found a place in a "asilo nido" (verbatim "asilo" =
kindergarten, "nido" = nest). We monthly pay about 510 EUR (= 610
USD). They have good quality and they are open 7.30AM - 19.00PM Monday
to Friday.

thank you for attention
excuse me for bad English



--
ciao
El Bandolero

In article ,
"Mary" wrote:

Come on..."Head Start, for poor families"...couldn't you find a more polite,
respectful, dignified way to refer to these UNFORTUNATE families? YOU don't
personally know of these "poor families" situations. That was really
uncalled for-regardless of your good intentions, I, personally, was
offended. I really think you could of just left it at "Head Start" and it
wasn't necessary to add "for poor families". JMHO

Head Start DOES have an income guideline, though -- it is only available
for families under a certain economic level, generally designated as
"poor". Why on earth should an objectively descriptive adjective be
called impolite? Do we really have to go to "economically
disadvantaged" or some other wordy euphamism? Since when is "poor"
insulting?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In ,
Mary wrote:

*Come on..."Head Start, for poor families"...couldn't you find a more polite,
*respectful, dignified way to refer to these UNFORTUNATE families? YOU don't
*personally know of these "poor families" situations. That was really
*uncalled for-regardless of your good intentions, I, personally, was
*offended. I really think you could of just left it at "Head Start" and it

I'm somewhat taken aback and very surprised by your remarks! I intend no
offense - I have personally met the criteria for being "poor" in the past,
and I am not ashamed to say it. I really don't think "poor" is an insult.
I would not be upset if, should my family's income fall below the poverty
line, someone referred to us as a "poor" family, or used the descriptive
phrase "poor families" to describe the socioeconomic group we fell into by
virtue of our income.

When did "poor" become a bad word? I just thought it meant not having much
money!!

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In article , Richard wrote:
Hillary Israeli wrote:
: I'm somewhat taken aback and very surprised by your remarks! I intend no
: offense - I have personally met the criteria for being "poor" in the past,
: and I am not ashamed to say it. I really don't think "poor" is an insult.
: I would not be upset if, should my family's income fall below the poverty
: line, someone referred to us as a "poor" family, or used the descriptive
: phrase "poor families" to describe the socioeconomic group we fell into by
: virtue of our income.
:
: When did "poor" become a bad word? I just thought it meant not having much
: money!!

Very well said, Hillary. A poor person is just a rich person without money.

Unfortunately, "poor" has many different meanings in English. While
most of us probably got the intended meaning ("impoverished"), it
appears that at least one reader got a different meaning
("incompetent") and there are several other meanings that made some
sense (such as "unfortunate").

If one were to make a remark on this forum that someone was a "poor
mother", it would probably be blocked by the moderator as being
uncivil, since the "incompetent" meaning seems intended.

On the other hand, if someone wrote "you poor dear", it would seem
like commiseration (or, perhaps, pity), since the "unfortunate"
meaning is clearly intended.

Context can help disambiguate meaning, but when talking about a
"program for poor families", there is some ambiguity remaining.

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.