Re: punishment

[==Daye==]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:17:25 EDT, "Beeswing" >
wrote:

>If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
>her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
>impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
>it's okay to have at least a little fun?

Well, she missed out on the field trip. I personally think she
was punished enough.

Making her be solemn and unhappy in my mind equates to pouring
salt into a wound. If she isn't allowed to have fun, what is she
doing all day? Sitting on the couch, staring into space?

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
"Beeswing" > wrote:

>My daughter is spending a good portion of her summer at the same
>facility that serves as her before and after school care during the
>schoolyear. Yesterday, she repeatedly refused to obey a teacher who told
>her to get out of the wading pool. She was told that if she couldn't
>listen in that environment, she couldn't be trusted on the next day's
>fieldtrip and would not be allowed to go. She did lose the field trip
>and ended up spending today at home.
>
>I don't want to get into a discussion as whether or not the punishment
>was in keeping with the offense (at this point, I believe that that's
>irrelevant). What I'm bothered by was that my husband wanted to take our
>daughter to a movie today as sort of a "consolation prize."

I think your dh is undermining the teacher's authority. Does he do
this with you? If not can he be explained to that's what he's doing?
>
>My daughter asked me if she could go, and I told her no. I didn't want
>her learning that if she disobeys her teacher, it's all right because
>she can stay home with her dad and get to go out to a movie, which is
>probably more fun than the field trip would have been. Then the issue
>came up of whether or not she could go to the wading pool, instead. I
>felt similarly (that she shouldn't be allowed to do it) but really had
>no sense of conviction. Not knowing quite what to do, I've left it up to
>her dad to talk with her and decide whether or not to take her.
>
>If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
>her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
>impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
>it's okay to have at least a little fun? I'm nonnegotiable about
>stopping short of the "special event" a movie would have been perceived
>as.

I don't think solemn and unhappy is required and I don't think it
would make her really feel the impact of her actions at this point.
IMHO the correction has to be immediate for it to be effective.

OTOH, she shouldn't get any special treats or fun outings either, and
I would vote no on the wading pool too - that was what she disobeyed
about, so she *especially* shouldn't get to do that.

Bored is OK.

grandma Rosalie

[Beeswing]

grandma Rosalie wrote:

>Bored is OK.

Bored = Unhappy, in my book, and I'm sure it's true in hers, too. I didn't mean
to suggest that I'd want her to be made miserable.

beeswing

[Scott Lindstrom]

Beeswing wrote:
> grandma Rosalie wrote:
>
>
>>Bored is OK.
>
>
> Bored = Unhappy, in my book, and I'm sure it's true in hers, too. I didn't mean
> to suggest that I'd want her to be made miserable.
>

I think learning to adapt to being bored, and finding
coping strategies, is an important skill. Life is not
always exciting.

This is veering off topic, but I don't understand the
need for, say, DVD players in a car so you can see
a movie while driving. If your kid is bored, so be
it. Let them learn to cope. What's the deal with
constant entertainment?

Scott DD 10 and DS 7

[MarjiG]

In article >, "Beeswing" > writes:

>
>If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
>her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
>impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
>it's okay to have at least a little fun? I'm nonnegotiable about
>stopping short of the "special event" a movie would have been perceived
>as.
>
>I'd really appreciate some perspective from other folks right now.
>

YMMV, as it probably depends a lot on the situation. If it was a trip she was
looking forward to, missing it might be punishment enough. If trips to the
wading pool are a pretty normal part of your routine, it seems ok. You might
pay particular attention to her instruction-following there, and remind her
that if she'd followed instructions before she could have gone on the trip.

FWIW, with what little you said it does sound like the punishment is more than
it should be. (But I don't know, of course, if this was a first event, how
the instructions were given, etc.)

-Marjorie

[LFortier]

Beeswing wrote:

>If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
>her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
>impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
>it's okay to have at least a little fun? I'm nonnegotiable about
>stopping short of the "special event" a movie would have been perceived
>as.
>
>I'd really appreciate some perspective from other folks right now.
>
>
>
Does she love this program so much that just missing a day is really
paying for her actions? Or is being at home better than going?

I may differ from other folks in this, but my attitude is that my
children will respect the adults they are with and obey their rules. I
wouldn't exactly put her in all day time out, but I sure wouldn't be
providing any fun activities.

Lesley

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
==Daye== > wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:17:25 EDT, "Beeswing" >
> wrote:
>
> >If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
> >her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
> >impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
> >it's okay to have at least a little fun?
>
> Well, she missed out on the field trip. I personally think she
> was punished enough.
>
> Making her be solemn and unhappy in my mind equates to pouring
> salt into a wound. If she isn't allowed to have fun, what is she
> doing all day? Sitting on the couch, staring into space?
>


If it were our house, special trips, play dates, TV and computer games
(any of which could well be more appealing than a field trip) would be
off limits for the day. She could entertain herself with reading,
playing the piano, playing with toys, goofing around outside, but would
be stuck going with me on any previously planned errands, no matter how
boring.

There shouldn't be any home dividend for getting into trouble at school
or daycare, IMO.

[Karen G]

That the tv/vcr was that effective gives a clue that tv is not on all
the time at your house. I think that movies while driving/flying have
there place--particularly on longer trips. Thirty years ago, many
families put a mattress in the back of a station wagon with lots of toys
and books. The kids could just sack out or crawl around, etc for
entertainment. Where youngsters are now closely confined to a car seat,
such entertainment can make car travel (and plane for that matter)
doable.

An aside note: If said children are exposed to excessive amounts of tv
on a regular basis, tv/vcr in the car will not improve travel. If the
environment of the car is pretty much the same as the living room,
boredom can come up even in the midst of a pretty exciting flick.

For short trips (less than one hour), a tv is probably not
necessary--even for a two year old. The ability to self-entertain
increases with exersize. Create an environment where a 2 year old
learns to entertain themselves for a minimum of 15 to 30 minutes a day,
a 5 year old--at least an hour or two a day, etc, you will find teens
who can keep themselves out of trouble. I am of the opinion that game
boys/hand held games are not necessary only because they decrease
interaction with others. At the same time, my little boy isn't old
enough to ask for one though.

Karen

[==Daye==]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:26:24 EDT, Elizabeth Gardner
> wrote:

>There shouldn't be any home dividend for getting into trouble at school
>or daycare, IMO.

I agree. Actually, your list of what is okay for the child to do
sounds fine. It gives them something to do without any special
rewards.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[E]

the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care center
was not an option?" what would she have done then?
Edith
nak

"LFortier" > wrote in message
...
> Beeswing wrote:
>
> >If a kid is home for a daycare or school related offense, would you want
> >her solemn and unhappy (or bored), so that she could really feel the
> >impact of her actions? Or has she paid enough for her what she did and
> >it's okay to have at least a little fun? I'm nonnegotiable about
> >stopping short of the "special event" a movie would have been perceived
> >as.
> >
> >I'd really appreciate some perspective from other folks right now.
> >
> >
> >
> Does she love this program so much that just missing a day is really
> paying for her actions? Or is being at home better than going?
>
> I may differ from other folks in this, but my attitude is that my
> children will respect the adults they are with and obey their rules. I
> wouldn't exactly put her in all day time out, but I sure wouldn't be
> providing any fun activities.
>
> Lesley
>

[MarjiG]

In article >, Scott Lindstrom
> writes:

>
>This is veering off topic, but I don't understand the
>need for, say, DVD players in a car so you can see
>a movie while driving. If your kid is bored, so be
>it. Let them learn to cope. What's the deal with
>constant entertainment?
>
Hopefully, you can't actually see it while driving, but while riding there are
times they are helpful.

We mostly use ours when driving after dark, when reading and most of the other
car games don't work as well.

-Marjorie

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
==Daye== > wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:26:24 EDT, Elizabeth Gardner
> > wrote:
>
> >There shouldn't be any home dividend for getting into trouble at school
> >or daycare, IMO.
>
> I agree. Actually, your list of what is okay for the child to do
> sounds fine. It gives them something to do without any special
> rewards.
>

Frankly, I'm not sure how I could stop her from reading or playing with
toys, short of locking her up in a room stripped of all possible sources
of entertainment. Not that I'd want to. But I can stop her from
watching TV (my husband has made it too complicated for her to turn on
without my aid), and using the computer (because I'm using it for my
work, which is one reason she's in daycamp to begin with).

Luckily for us, outside authority figures rarely report any problems.
It's only us she's likely to act up with.

[Banty]

In article >, "E" says...
>
>the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care center
>was not an option?" what would she have done then?
> Edith

Found another option.

Banty

[Beeswing]

"E" > wrote in message
...
> the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care
center
> was not an option?" what would she have done then?

Since all the other kids were going on the field trip, it would have
tied up a teacher to watch my kid back at the center. It seemed best for
all concerned to keep her at home.

beeswing

[E]

"Beeswing" > wrote in message
...
> "E" > wrote in message
> ...
> > the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care
> center
> > was not an option?" what would she have done then?
>
> Since all the other kids were going on the field trip, it would have
> tied up a teacher to watch my kid back at the center. It seemed best for
> all concerned to keep her at home.
>
> beeswing

OK, I'm glad that was able to work out OK. I'm just concerned because it
will not be an option for me when I go back to work as my DH and my jobs are
not that flexible. I was just wondering what the other options were.
Edith
nak

[Lee]

"E" said:

>OK, I'm glad that was able to work out OK. I'm just concerned because it
>will not be an option for me when I go back to work as my DH and my jobs are
>not that flexible. I was just wondering what the other options were.
>Edith

A brat at the daycare we use was recently suspended for a few days
for, among other things, hitting a little girl, and then scratching
her and hitting two other kids when he found out that somebody had
told on him.

If the parents both work, I suppose one had to call in sick or take
vacation time, or they had to impose on a friend or relative or pay
the drop-in rate at some other care center.

You can never rely on a daycare center to be available every day.
Sometimes they take holidays that your work doesn't observe.
Sometimes your child will be sick and won't be allowed to attend.

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Karen G > wrote:
>That the tv/vcr was that effective gives a clue that tv is not on all
>the time at your house.

No, it's not, but the 2yo watches more than the others, and more than
I'd ideally like him to (averages about 1.5 hours per day, I'd say).
The big kids watch almost no TV at all -- maybe an hour or two per week!

>For short trips (less than one hour), a tv is probably not
>necessary--even for a two year old.

Oh, sure, we do a 45-minute drive twice daily with no TV. I'm talking
about longer trips (3+ hours) for the most part. That said, now that
we have the TV, I have been known to stop by the library on the way
home for a video for the 2yo on a day when he had a poor nap and has
been falling apart over next to nothing before getting in the car....
Listening to crying/screaming for 45 minutes, and I have done it, has
a very bad impact on my nerves and the older kids' as well! Not every
day, by any means, but 3 or 4 times per month when we're having a rough
day...

--Robyn

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Scott Lindstrom > wrote:
>Six days of driving in 2 weeks. Ugh.

Amazingly, it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be.

>Maybe I have peculiar kids, or a faulty memory (or both!), but
>I don't recall too onerous a time with DD or DS at age 2. Our
>longest trip I recall was about 13 hours -- Memphis to Madison
>in one day. Normally, as long as they had occasional
>new things to look at, or crayons, or even better, magnetic
>toys or tootsie pops, things were okay. But the last hour
>of this drive, about 9:30 at night, was a little tense

Pre-TV-in-the-car, the things we used to entertain the other
kids as toddlers were similar, but also lots of music they
liked. (Unfortunately, we were not as fond of it, especially
after long hours of listening to it. A side advantage of the
VCR was with all kids plugged into that, we could listen to
"our" music in peace. :) Lots of snacks too. We still used
a lot of those types of distractions on this trip, but with
nap schedules getting mangled over the course of the trip, etc.
we did have some times when the 2yo was just inconsolable,
except by TV. And, oh, what a blessing it was in those cases!

Prior to the TV, it was almost inevitable that the last half hour of
any trip 3 hours or longer would end with whichever child was the baby
or toddler at the time screaming. How they sensed that it was the last
half hour, I'll never know. By that point, none of the usual
distractions worked. But somehow the TV seemed to do it. Perhaps
because, as Karen G pointed out, it's not on all the time at home.

--Robyn

[Colleen Porter]

(MarjiG) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Scott Lindstrom
> > writes:
> >
> >This is veering off topic, but I don't understand the
> >need for, say, DVD players in a car so you can see
> >a movie while driving. If your kid is bored, so be
> >it. Let them learn to cope. What's the deal with
> >constant entertainment?
> >
>
> We mostly use ours when driving after dark, when reading and most of the other
> car games don't work as well.

We use books on CD from the public library when we are on long road
trips. For our recent vacation, a bit over 3,500 miles in less than
three weeks, we went through about six books, including 20 hours of
Harry Potter 4.

Some of them were appropriate to the surroundings--we were listening
to MR. REVERE AND I as we drove through Lexington and Concord, MA.

We enjoy listening to books together and discussing them. And I like
the idea of teaching them to listen without a picture, which is
actually an oft-neglected skill in today's society.

All the rental cars we've had in the last few years have had a CD
player, so there was no cost to us.

Colleen Kay Porter
(who is ninth on the public library waiting list for the new Harry
Potter book on CD)

[H Schinske]

Colleen Kay Porter ) wrote:

>We use books on CD from the public library when we are on long road
>trips.

On our recent trip to California, I brought _Come Sing, Jimmy Jo_ (on tape) and
_A Cricket in Times Square_ (on CD) along, as the best I could find in the
library at the last minute. _A Cricket in Times Square_ was so scratched that
we couldn't listen to it, a pity as it might have made a lot more sense to the
4-year-old than _Come Sing, Jimmy Jo_ did.

We don't have a lot of luck with CDs from the library -- out of several music
CDs I checked out at the same time, I think only one was really listenable.

--Helen

[David desJardins]

Helen writes:
> We don't have a lot of luck with CDs from the library -- out of
> several music CDs I checked out at the same time, I think only one was
> really listenable.

I don't have a lot of experience with music CDs, but have you tried a
disk polisher? They make a big difference with software CDs (which get
scratched by my kids).

The scratch tolerance of different CD players also varies quite a bit.

David desJardins

[Mary Gordon]

We bought our Montana van two years ago, and at the time, I thought
the VCR was a stupid feature and a waste of money (it was hubbies
idea). I've changed my mind entirely. We have three kids (now 12, 9
and 5) and we own a summer cottage that is a 3 1/2 drive (which
usually ends up being 4 1/2 with traffic, stops for food, fuel,
bathrooms etc.).

I used to hate the drive, since the kids would complain, fight, kick
the seat etc. Now, we hit the highway, pop in a tape and wow, complete
peace and quiet. The kids each have headphones, so we don't hear the
sound of the movie, and hubbie and I get to listen to nice music in
the front (stuff WE like to listen to, whether radio, CD or tape) and
actually TALK to each other, while the kids are glued to Toy Story or
Harry Potter. Tape runs out, they start nattering at each other again.

It has been a great thing for us on that boring drive to the lake. The
kids are happy and mom and dad are way less stressed, and the trip
goes much faster.

Mary G.

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
Scott Lindstrom > wrote:

> Mary Gordon wrote:
>
> >
> > I used to hate the drive, since the kids would complain, fight, kick
> > the seat etc. Now, we hit the highway, pop in a tape and wow, complete
> > peace and quiet. The kids each have headphones, so we don't hear the
> > sound of the movie, and hubbie and I get to listen to nice music in
> > the front (stuff WE like to listen to, whether radio, CD or tape) and
> > actually TALK to each other, while the kids are glued to Toy Story or
> > Harry Potter. Tape runs out, they start nattering at each other again.
>
> We taught our kids that is was totally unacceptable to
> distract the driver. I even recall an aborted trip
> because they couldn't settle down. That includes screaming,
> kicking the seat, etc. I think that's a more important
> thing to teach than just about anything in a car.
>

I have to agree, even though we regularly do a similar three-hour drive
to the lake. I understand the temptation to pacify them by popping in a
tape (and my daughter would be completely thrilled if that were a car
option), but having to entertain yourself on a long trip without
electronic aids and without annoying your travelling companions is a
valuable life skill best learned young, IMO. Of course, we only have
one kid, so we don't have sibling nattering. But she's fully capable of
nattering at us enough to make up for it.

At a fairly early age, she started entertaining herself by drawing in
the car, and now she's more likely to read. Now and then she'll
remember to bring her personal CD player and will go under headphones to
listen to music. I much prefer those habits to the movie habit,
especially since it would negate the "brains to mush" message we try to
convey about excessive tv-watching at home. And sometimes we actually
have interesting three-way conversations in the car.

For those reasons, I will veto a DVD player in the car until it's
standard equipment on the economy cars I favor and I can only get rid of
it by physically ripping it out.

[Scott Lindstrom]

Elizabeth Gardner wrote:

> [snip stuff about DVDs in car] And sometimes we actually
> have interesting three-way conversations in the car.

In addition to having interesting conversations with the kids,
I learn very interesting things in the car when DD and DS are
bored and start talking to each other. I learn even more
interesting things if a friend is in the car as well and they
talk. Eavesdropping can teach you things.

Scott DD 10 and DS 7

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Elizabeth Gardner > wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott Lindstrom > wrote:
>
> > Mary Gordon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I used to hate the drive, since the kids would complain, fight, kick
> > > the seat etc. Now, we hit the highway, pop in a tape and wow, complete
> > > peace and quiet. The kids each have headphones, so we don't hear the
> > > sound of the movie, and hubbie and I get to listen to nice music in
> > > the front (stuff WE like to listen to, whether radio, CD or tape) and
> > > actually TALK to each other, while the kids are glued to Toy Story or
> > > Harry Potter. Tape runs out, they start nattering at each other again.
> >
> > We taught our kids that is was totally unacceptable to
> > distract the driver. I even recall an aborted trip
> > because they couldn't settle down. That includes screaming,
> > kicking the seat, etc. I think that's a more important
> > thing to teach than just about anything in a car.
> >
>
> I have to agree, even though we regularly do a similar three-hour drive
> to the lake. I understand the temptation to pacify them by popping in a
> tape (and my daughter would be completely thrilled if that were a car
> option), but having to entertain yourself on a long trip without
> electronic aids and without annoying your travelling companions is a
> valuable life skill best learned young, IMO. Of course, we only have
> one kid, so we don't have sibling nattering. But she's fully capable of
> nattering at us enough to make up for it.
>

It isn't the nattering that gets to be a problem -- it's the fighting
with each other in a way that kids (generally) only do with siblings.

I once watched in the mirror (DH was driving) while my then 2 yo DD
tried to keep from falling asleep. She "popped" herself awake several
times -- then, looking for something to keep her awake and with
absolutely NO provocation or warning, suddenly hit her twin brother.
(It worked: he started screaming, she stayed awake.) On some trips, we
put ME between them in the back seat -- but than meant having their
younger sister in the front seat, something that, even then, wasn't
considered desireable.

DVD players weren't an option when my kids were little; we used music
tapes. I have one who cannot read or draw or write in the car without
getting violently ill, though sometimes one would read to everyone else.
We talked, we played games, we did all kinds of things. We did some
VERY long drives (Massachusetts to Minnesota and back every summer,
several 10 hour trips, a 4 hour trip several times a year) and you can
bet that if DVD players for cars had been available, I'd have gladly put
them in the car and played the sorts of things my kids enjoyed watching
together!

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

[Mary Gordon]

It is hard to annoy your sibs when you don't have any. Sorry, just
don't think our situation is comparable.

Mary G.

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>We taught our kids that is was totally unacceptable to
>distract the driver. I even recall an aborted trip
>because they couldn't settle down. That includes screaming,
>kicking the seat, etc. I think that's a more important
>thing to teach than just about anything in a car.

I had to walk a couple of miles home with two 4.5-year-olds once, because we
were on the way to a party and the roads turned out to be dangerously icy (a
freak weather thing, no one had expected it, and we don't usually get icy roads
so we weren't in any way prepared). My husband started talking about going
home, and the girls started crying and carrying on about not going to the
party. He couldn't drive on ice with two kids yelling (or even with one kid),
so he stopped and let us out.

All of us made it home safely. Fortunately the kids did have fairly warm
clothing on.

--Helen

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
H Schinske > wrote:
wrote:
>
>>We taught our kids that is was totally unacceptable to
>>distract the driver. I even recall an aborted trip
>>because they couldn't settle down. That includes screaming,
>>kicking the seat, etc. I think that's a more important
>>thing to teach than just about anything in a car.
>
>I had to walk a couple of miles home with two 4.5-year-olds once, because we
>were on the way to a party and the roads turned out to be dangerously icy (a
>freak weather thing, no one had expected it, and we don't usually get icy roads
>so we weren't in any way prepared). My husband started talking about going
>home, and the girls started crying and carrying on about not going to the
>party. He couldn't drive on ice with two kids yelling (or even with one kid),
>so he stopped and let us out.

I'm surprised you could walk safely in icy conditions, especially with
the threat of drivers not accustomed to driving in ice on the roads.
I think in the same situation I would have pulled over until they could
quiet down, but I would not have had anyone get out. I'm sure it made
quite an impression, though!

>All of us made it home safely.

Glad to hear it!

--Robyn

[H Schinske]

wrote:
>
>I'm surprised you could walk safely in icy conditions, especially with
>the threat of drivers not accustomed to driving in ice on the roads.

Well, to be clear, they weren't icy right by our house, or we wouldn't have
gotten as far as we did. It was a freak thing -- the neighborhood where the
party was didn't have any ice either, so most of the expected guests had no
trouble getting there, only the ones from out our way.

It was in the city, with sidewalks, and quite flat where we were walking. So I
really wouldn't have expected anyone, even a Seattle driver ;-), to screw up
badly enough to go up on the sidewalk. We did fall down a few times when
crossing streets, though.

I was quite used to walking on ice, having lived in Worcester, Mass., where the
winter weather goes freeze/thaw/freeze/thaw all winter long. I can remember
falling on the ice when pregnant with my twins about a zillion times, and never
really hurting myself. So it didn't occur to me to be very nervous about it.

--Helen

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
H Schinske > wrote:
wrote:
>>
>>I'm surprised you could walk safely in icy conditions, especially with
>>the threat of drivers not accustomed to driving in ice on the roads.
>
>Well, to be clear, they weren't icy right by our house, or we wouldn't have
>gotten as far as we did. It was a freak thing -- the neighborhood where the
>party was didn't have any ice either, so most of the expected guests had no
>trouble getting there, only the ones from out our way.
>
>It was in the city, with sidewalks, and quite flat where we were walking. So I
>really wouldn't have expected anyone, even a Seattle driver ;-), to screw up
>badly enough to go up on the sidewalk. We did fall down a few times when
>crossing streets, though.
>
>I was quite used to walking on ice, having lived in Worcester, Mass., where the
>winter weather goes freeze/thaw/freeze/thaw all winter long. I can remember
>falling on the ice when pregnant with my twins about a zillion times, and never
>really hurting myself. So it didn't occur to me to be very nervous about it.

I realized after sending this that it sounded like I was questioning your
decision without really knowing the circumstances, and I didn't mean to do
that. I assumed that there were circumstances that made it safe enough
to walk. I just had a hard time imagining them because in my experience
(living in VT, with good snow tires and a heavy vehicle) I can safely drive
in much icier conditions than I can walk in witout falling frequently. :)

I was mostly "big pregnant" in the summer when I lived in MA. I do
remember falling on ice while carrying Ryan in a Snuggli under my coat
once when he was tiny; we weren't hurt but it's not an experience I'd
choose to repeat! I also fell when carrying Matthew, about 3yo, from
the car to the house. I'd had no trouble driving but fell pretty badly
while walking. I fell flat on my back. He landed on me and didn't get
hurt, but I was pretty bruised up from that one.

Evan was born in March in VT, and I managed never to slip on the ice
while carrying him (inside or out). I did have one experience when
I got stuck on a back road that was badly enough iced up that I couldn't
drive and ended up waiting for the sand truck to come up. When I had to
get out of the car briefly, I was clinging to the edge for dear life.


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

[E]

"Robyn Kozierok" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> E > wrote:
> >
> >"Beeswing" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "E" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care
> >> center
> >> > was not an option?" what would she have done then?
> >>
> >> Since all the other kids were going on the field trip, it would have
> >> tied up a teacher to watch my kid back at the center. It seemed best
for
> >> all concerned to keep her at home.
> >>
> >> beeswing
> >
> >OK, I'm glad that was able to work out OK. I'm just concerned because it
> >will not be an option for me when I go back to work as my DH and my jobs
are
> >not that flexible. I was just wondering what the other options were.
>
> There will always be days when your child can't attend daycare. Even
> if they are never suspended for behavioral issues, they will get sick.
> If you both have inflexible jobs, you either need a nanny (rather than
> daycare center) who will care for them sick or well, or you need a
> reliable backup situation for when your child is sick. We generally used
> a combination of working from home, flexible hours and vacation time to
> cover our children's illnesses, but it sounds like that may not be an
> option for you.
>
> --Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
>

true, those are not options for me, but we do have a local place that does
provide mildly ill emergency back-up in-home childcare service. but that is
for an ill child. the above was not for an ill child and would have been a
problem for me. however, that might have been a wake-up call to me as a
parent that something has to be done about this child...
--
Edith
oht nak

[E]

"I" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robyn Kozierok" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > E > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Beeswing" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> "E" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > the one point I haven't heard is "what if not going to the day care
> > >> center
> > >> > was not an option?" what would she have done then?
> > >>
> > >> Since all the other kids were going on the field trip, it would have
> > >> tied up a teacher to watch my kid back at the center. It seemed best
> for
> > >> all concerned to keep her at home.
> > >>
> > >> beeswing
> > >
> > >OK, I'm glad that was able to work out OK. I'm just concerned because
it
> > >will not be an option for me when I go back to work as my DH and my
jobs
> are
> > >not that flexible. I was just wondering what the other options were.
> >
> > There will always be days when your child can't attend daycare. Even
> > if they are never suspended for behavioral issues, they will get sick.
> > If you both have inflexible jobs, you either need a nanny (rather than
> > daycare center) who will care for them sick or well, or you need a
> > reliable backup situation for when your child is sick. We generally
used
> > a combination of working from home, flexible hours and vacation time to
> > cover our children's illnesses, but it sounds like that may not be an
> > option for you.
> >
> > --Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
> >
>
> true, those are not options for me, but we do have a local place that does
> provide mildly ill emergency back-up in-home childcare service. but that
is
> for an ill child. the above was not for an ill child and would have been
a
> problem for me. however, that might have been a wake-up call to me as a
> parent that something has to be done about this child...
> --
> Edith
> oht nak

sorry to follow my own post here, but this has now become a moot point for
me :) It seems that there is no work in my office for me and i will be laid
off some time between now and 9/23 :)
now i can look for something closer to home with better hours - maybe
evening, or work at home or something :)
--
Edith
oht nak