What to look for in a preschool?

[bostonimproper]

Next fall, when LO is 2.5, we’re thinking of signing them up for part time preschool. Given our area, where slots fill up 9 months in advance and open houses are coming up soon, that means we are researching options now.

What did/would you prioritize for preschool?

Most of the options we are seriously considering are coops (i.e. high parental involvement) and have some sort of “child-led” philosophy (Montessori, Reggio, etc.). They all have a half time option (8:30-12, 5 days a week) and are easy walks from our house. Filtering out places without longer teacher tenures (5 years+) and paying attention to student:teacher ratios. A couple are bilingual immersion, which seems like it’d be useful given the ability of toddlers to just sponge up language.

After all that, I’m kind of mostly judging places by how nice the facilities are and “vibes”, I guess? Anything else or am I overthinking this?

[Hristo Botev]

First, to answer your question directly, we didn't put a whole lot of thought into it as the BigLaw firm I was working with at the time had a firm-"subsidized" (still ~$18K/year/kid over 10 years ago) Bright Horizons facility it shared with another BigLaw firm, and we figured if it was good enough for other highly-paid and overly-educated wage slaves, it was good enough for our kids. We later switched the kids to the municipal school district's daycare program, because it had the free pre-k program--the city we lived in was one of the last cities in the state that was able to basically segregate public education by class/income/wealth by carving out from the larger county school district a tiny school system defined by very small city borders (total city territory was about 4.5 sq. miles). The state later changed the constitution to prevent this sort of thing from happening. All that is to say that, as with the law firm daycare, the parents of the kids at the municipal "public" daycare were all high income, overeducated wage slaves as well.

Second, I'd be remiss if I didn't say, now with a 14-year old and an 11 (about to be 12) year old, deciding to send our kids to preschool and pre-k ranks second on the list of parenting regrets thus far behind only the decision not to have more kids (and the decision to not starting to have kids earlier). I don't mean to be inflammatory about it, but it really is outsourcing parenting, and I worry about what sort of permanent damage we may have done to our kids by handing them off to strangers paid by the hour to do all the things for our kids that should have been done by parents and extended family members, all so that DW and I could maintain a double income that we didn't need, especially given that DW's income was negated by all the daycare costs anyway.

[jennypenny]

I'm glad you said that @HB. It's an unpopular position but it's one that I share. I can't shake the feeling that institutionalizing them at such a young age is generally a bad idea.

OTOH, there are several reasons why someone might want to send their kids to preschool. The obvious one is if they need child care to work. Or if they suspect learning disabilities that need to be addressed as early as possible. Another might be if parents are extremely driven, successful types who want their kids to excel in school. There are also some skills that are best taught really young for the best results, like language and music.

So some things you might consider ...
* If you want your kid(s) to excel academically, put them into a preschool that mimics school. Ask what elementary schools the kids go to after leaving. Ask if they do any testing, or early intervention (I assume that's universal in the US), or separate the kids by academic ability as they get older.
* If you want your kid(s) to excel at music, get them into music classes really young, whether at a music school, a preschool focused on music, or both. Studies show early exposure to good music instruction has an enormous effect.
*If you want your kid(s) to excel at sports, put them into gymnastics and swimming classes. Despite jacob's objections to swimming, those two sports provide well-rounded development without a lot of unnecessary strain on their bodies at that age.

I guess if it were me, I'd try to find a preschool that takes the kids outside regardless of the weather, gives kids a quiet corner to retreat to when they're peopled out, and one that focuses on reading, storytelling, building things, and puzzle playing, as opposed to one that's focused on craftsy things to send home to parents every week. A lot of people around me like coops for academic success.

Requisite ERE note: You can DIY most of this, or mix it up with targeted classes in sports, music, language classes or limited preschool, depending on your strengths and weaknesses.

[chenda]

I didn't know Jacob was anti-swimming. Swimming is great and essential to stop children drowning if they happen to fall into water. In Iceland it's a mandatory subject at school.

[jennypenny]

He's not anti-swimming per se. He was a competitive swimmer as a kid and feels it wasn't a good fit for him. (he posted about it recently in another thread) I think swimming is a good sport, especially when used as a winter/summer buffer between more competitive (read: taxing) fall and spring sports, at least in the US. My point above was that it's a good early sport, like gymnastics (which gets really rough later on).

[chenda]

I see, yes I agree. Heavy impact sports are best avoided especially in children.

[jacob]

My mother spent a large part of her life raising children: preschool, daycare (institutional and private), and staying at home to raise us. Based on what I've seen and heard from her, I would prioritize having one parent staying at home if at all possible. You pretty much get a "student/teacher" ratio of one. Or two(+) if there are siblings. This effect is so large that the youngest sibling often suffer subtle effects of parents having somewhat lost interest/excitement in parenting child #N after going through it with childrens 1,..N-1. Worse, they might outsource some "parenting" duties to the oldest child.

Toddlers may sponge up languages, but expect that any foreign language words they picked up at age 2-4 will be forgotten by age 8 if they don't use them at home. Indeed, mixing languages might screw up their grammatical understanding and slow down the accumulation of vocabulary(*). Learning how to speak well is further hindered by learning mainly from other kids rather than adults. On the flip side, they'll quickly be up to speed on the newest curse words

(*) Putting them in front of a foreign language TV before their primary language grammar is locked in may result in similar effects.

[SAHX] of course presumes one or both parents are into "parenting". I somehow always presumed that was a prerequisite for having children---it's the main reason why I chose not to---and a main priority after having had them (over e.g. career or increasing spending budget). Otherwise, why bother? (I understand that there are other reasons, but in my book parenting would be the main priority.)

Add: WRT swimming, yes I think it's a very good idea to learn how to swim. OTOH, I have very few good things to say about swimming as a sport. You get great endurance, but you get pretty much nothing else in terms of physical abilities, see https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills ... Also, the social aspect of swimming is nearly zero as you only get 10 seconds to exchange a few words with the person in front of you and the person behind for each break of the set. Booooooring! (Well, it does teach discipline and how to suffer through boredom, so there's that!)

[suomalainen]

I'll take the contrarian view. For my bio kids, my ex stayed home with them, but we put them in coop daycare for half days 3 days a week for "socialization" for their pre-K year (no such service provided by the school system in our area). No regrets. It wasn't outsourcing parenting for us, as it sounds like it wouldn't be for you. It was just a place for the kids to play for a few hours. In addition, the idea was to ease them into full-day kindergarten so they'd have some experience with teachers, other kids, "institutionalization", etc.

As for which one? Yeah, you're overthinking it.

[Western Red Cedar]

DW worked in early childhood education for more than a decade, including 5+ years with one of the best Reggio programs in the PNW. She said you've identified the top three screening criteria:

1. Ratios
2. Centers with emergent curriculums (this is the gold standard)
3. Teacher tenure

It can help to know the temperament of your child and their particular needs. Some of the philosophies with an emergent curriculum (Reggio, Montessori, or Waldorf) cater better to particular temperaments.

If you know your child thrives on structure and enjoys more individualized periods of times with minimal interruptions, Montessori is probably best. For Reggio, most kids do well, but kids who get overstimulated by a lot of visual clutter, transitions, and multiple activities happening at the same time might not fit well. If you know your child has an active temperament and needs to be outside, look at a forest preschool. They are amazing for kids that don't do well in a classroom setting, but prefer hands-on learning. If your child has a lot of separation anxiety, a co-op model can alleviate some of that as parents can engage more regularly in the classroom.

Here are a few other notes:

-Parents should gel with the philosophy of the program and the culture of the center (teachers, directors, etc.).
-Check for certifications such as NAYEC or others applicable to your state.
-Some programs have better reputations with a specific age/cohort. It is good to identify a program that does well across the age groups. Testimonials from other parents at the facility are a good way to figure this out. Pay attention to the classroom dynamics for all classrooms while you are touring.
-The facility should have a good quality outdoor area, and support outdoor play in all kinds of weather.
-Co-ops are great because they naturally build and prioritize community, but any good center should do that. Look for centers with a strong sense of community.
-If what you are looking for is primarily socialization, childcare may not be necessary before three.
-Half days are great for the initial year or so, but think about longer days at ages 4-5. It can help with the transition to Kindergarten.
-In home care can work well for some families, and may be a much cheaper option. It may be particularly beneficial for infants and pre-toddlers.

Ultimately, if you find a good program you won't be handing your kids off to strangers. You'll be joining a community. DW says some of her proudest accomplishments were building connections between families that lasted a decade down the road, even though the children went to different elementary schools. DW still keeps in touch with a lot of the parents she worked with years ago.

[jennypenny]

@suo, sorry if I didn't make it clear. I agree with you about only doing a token amount of preschool. We're definitely in the free range camp wrt to most things. But since the OP asked what to look for in a preschool, not whether preschool is a good idea, I decided to tone down my response and try to answer the question posed.

I think WRC's post above shows that full-time preschool is more about the parents and less about the kids. That's why I answered the way I did -- if parents have firm plans wrt their kids goals/activities, then they should look for a preschool that gives the kid a leg up on other kids. It's the least they can do if they are going to place high expectations on them.

[Gilberto de Piento]

You can look up preschools to check for violations: https://childcare.mass.gov/findchildcare. Click individual school to see details. Some violations matter more than others to me.

Use available social networks to see what other parents have to say.

Search for the name of a candidate school in the news and online to see if anything concerning comes up.

Do a tour of the school if available. Drive by at drop off, pick up, and random times to see what it looks like.

Think about your drop off and pick up. How far are you willing to travel, etc.

Getting into a school can be tough. Think about how far down your list of schools you would go if you don't get your top pick.

[suomalainen]

if they are going to place high expectations on them.

[shivers]

[Hristo Botev]

Think about your drop off and pick up. How far are you willing to travel, etc.

Second this.

I said that we switched to our muni/public preschool because of the free pre-K, but it was also because of the commute. The Bright Horizons facility was (naturally) near my office, which meant that my kids got to participate in my daily commute (no fun at all), which meant that they normally passed out cold on the drive home after a full and exhausting day at daycare, which meant that they were somewhat ornery once we got home and at dinner (the only real family time we had during the week), and then they had a hard time getting to sleep at night because of the early evening nap they had in the back of my car. Also, I was working as a junior and mid-level associate at a BigLaw firm, which meant I was not on a regular schedule and had a lot of very early mornings and very late nights, which meant sometimes (often) DW (who worked at a hospital and had a more regular work schedule) had to drive out to do pick up and drop off, which added over an hour to her commute each way. Needless to say she wasn't very happy with that situation.

All that is to say, I second GdP's point about considering drop off and pick up. I listened to a whole lot of Carly Rae Jepson and similar such mindless pop music in my futile effort to keep my kids awake on the commutes home.

One can get into the weeds about which daycare philosophy is right for their kid, but it honestly doesn't matter if they then get subjected to the human torture that is work commute traffic:

"Daddy said a bad word . . . ."

[Biscuits and Gravy]

What did/would you prioritize for preschool?

By necessity my kids started at daycare when they were 3 months old and they’re now in Kinder and 1st, so here’s some 20/20 hindsight for you:

1. I had to prioritize availability, affordability, and accessibility (can I get there within 10 minutes after I get the phone call that they puked on themselves and then get home quickly with them miserable and retching in the backseat?). Optimally, I would have prioritized teacher:student ratio and teacher vibe. One great teacher can make a shit school great, and one shit teacher can make a great school shit. But, teachers leave, and there is a lot of turnover in daycares because the pay and usually the management is shit.
2. Ages 0-4 don’t matter. Montessori, free-balling at home, jumping between two households; sans abuse it doesn’t make a lick of difference, so chill. You have already rolled the dice on who your kid is going to be, and whether you send them to the bilingual Mandarin daycare or the Music Institute for Brilliant Two Year Olds, it does not matter. All you really have to do is keep them alive until they’re 4, then
3. Age 4 matters. There is an obvious gap between the kids in kinder who went to PreK4 and those who did not. The ones who did not have no idea how to line up and shut up and that makes it a lot harder for teachers and students alike. PreK4 is crucial: it exposes your kid to the myriad kid illnesses (have fun!), they get socialized, and they get institutionalized, which is a good thing if you’re planning on sending them to a “normal” elementary school.

My advice would be don’t blow a bunch of money and gaskets over the first four years.

[Jean]

@Biscuits and Gravy
I've seen a lot of kids a little bit above 4 years old, in a context where I add to make them climb on something, and I'm pretty convinced that the very bellow average abilities some of them exibited was due to a lack of free play. With free play, I mean not having their attention controled by a third party or a device.
Of course, the three options you mentioned before you said it doesn't matter do probably include a lot of free play, so maybe it doesn't even occur to you that some parents will put their kid in the custody of an Ipad for most of the day, or plan their day full of activities, which would be a good news
I would even go as far as saying that sending your kids to to much classes, your kid might not have enough time to learn what they are supposed to learn by themself (among others, moving their body, and picking social clues on other people).
I mostly agree on what you wrote, I was just a bit annoyed by the it doesn't matter phrase.

[Biscuits and Gravy]

@Jean I think parking a kid in front of an iPad all day or planning their day to the minute would fall under the umbrella of abuse. My comment was geared toward highly intelligent people like Boston Improper who think about parenting a great deal and care about their kid and how they turn out. I wish I could back and chill and enjoy my kids going through ages 0-4 instead of always being a ball of anxiety about the choices I made for them. Ultimately, the choices a reasonably intelligent and engaged parent makes are sufficient for a child’s healthy development, and if a parent is looking to optimize their kid’s development, well, that’s just an exercise in futility and a guaranteed source of frustration and stress.

[Jean]

I completly agree with your last post.
Actually, my gf gives classes whose goal is to help parents chill and enjoy their toddlers

[crabapples]

I have 4 kids, oldest nearly an adult. My
oldest 3 were in varying amounts of care from almost none to "way too much" (one, sadly, was cared for outside of our home starting from 2 weeks old, due to some adverse circumstances). My youngest has never been in care. In 2020, our daycare closed so my husband and I rearranged our work schedules so a parent is always home. This is my preferred arrangement by far.

When choosing daycare, the three most important things to me were:

1) we could pay the bill. (Though for a period I actually had to use student loans to pay for childcare.)

2) nearby either work or home so not too much time was spent in transportation

3) any record of violations with OCFS are strictly of the paperwork variety and never involved losing kids, inappropriate discipline, or safety issues. This was obviously really important and superceded convenience of location. The places without serious violations tend to have long term employees with lots of experience and developmentally appropriate expectations.

Everything else is window dressing. I am a neonatal intensive care nurse, so I spend my time away from my kids caring for other people's children. In my opinion, the best caregivers are ones who are able to enjoy being with their charges and relate to the children as individuals. The best environment is one that is sufficienly resourced to allow that type of care - so the caregivers are not overburdened with too many children to adequately look after any of them. This is much more important than any particular philosophy of education or any of the other things I once wrung my hands about. Safety and "good enough" warmth - that's what is needed.