Another great moment in government overreach and nanny statism
AEIdeas
From Lenore Skenazy’s article in Reason “Bureaucrats Consider Shutting Down Informal Play School for 2-Year-Olds Because It’s Too Safe”:
Bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. may make it impossible for an informal parent group to meet. For 45 years, parents have brought their two-year-olds to the Lutheran Church of the Reformation as part of a cooperative play school endeavor. It’s a chance to socialize with other haggard moms and (presumably some) dads dealing with the terrible twos, and it’s volunteer run. But as Karin Lips, mom of a baby she hopes will join the club in two years, writes in The Washington Post:
On Sept. 7, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education investigators inspected a playgroup of toddlers to assess whether the cooperative was an illegal daycare. The investigators issued Capitol Hill Cooperative Play School parents a “statement of deficiencies,” alleging that the Capitol Hill Cooperative Play School was violating the regulations that apply to a “child development facility.”
The problem—which isn’t actually a problem, unless you define it as such—is that because the play group has some rules and requirements, including the fact that parents must submit emergency contact forms, as well as tell the group when their kid is sick, the play group is not a play group but a “child development facility.” And child development facilities are subject to regulation and licensing by the government.
As Lips points out, this actually creates an incentive for parent-run play groups to be less safe, because if they don’t have rules about emergency contact info, and how to evacuate and such, they are considered officially “informal” and can go on their merry, possibly slipshod, way.
….
Take a step back and you see a group of people—toddlers and parents—enjoying themselves. They’re meeting, playing, and perfectly content. But another group is trying to butt in and end the fun—and the convenience. Just who’s acting like a two-year-old?
Not Sure (in the comments): Same as with feeding the homeless; you can’t have people getting the idea that they can manage their own lives without government oversight and realize they could do just fine with a lot less of it.
Same as with feeding the homeless- can’t have people getting the idea that they can manage their own lives without government oversight and realize they could do just fine with a lot less of it.
If you want to feed the homeless on your private property go for it. If you want to use public land which is often designated for other uses – then let the government bleach all the food. It is not your right to feed homeless in pubic parks in any haphazard manner you choose
Ignoring that my argument has nothing to do with the distinction between public and private property, you’re absolutely right. The way it works is that people should have no expectation that the government will allow them to use public property without permission.
Kind of throws a wrench into Walt’s “We Are The Government” fantasy, doesn’t it? I mean- do you have to ask yourself for permission to do things? Of course not.
In most places you can’t feed the homeless on your own private property without a county health department permit to do so.
Why would an emergency contact form be necessary if the parent(s) is simply with the child socializing with other parents? Maybe the parent leaves for a while?
The group has a website with a contact link. You could ask them.
Thanks. I saw that later. It says parents volunteer take turns watching the children. Leaving the kids with someone else, pay or no pay, is daycare here in Michigan. Maybe D.C. is different?
The excerpt above “socialize with other haggard moms and (presumably some dads)” makes it sound like a group meeting or having coffee together instead of taking off without the kids.
Whether daycare should be licensed or not is a different argument.
“Leaving the kids with someone else, pay or no pay, is daycare here in Michigan.”
Seems like something people could decide for themselves whether or not they’d like to participate in. Since they have a waiting list, it appears to be quite popular.
That’s true, but I don’t think it can realistically be argued that the church-run group is not daycare if the parents leave.
Call it whatever you like. As long as the people involved are satisfied with how it’s run and nobody who’s opposed to it is forced to participate, what’s the problem?
The problem is trying to say it is a socializing event because when the parent leaves it is actually childcare.
On another subject, there are some good things about licensing such as a background pervert check.
Call it whatever you like. As long as the people involved are satisfied with how it’s run and nobody who’s opposed to it is forced to participate, what’s the problem?
Walt, is it daycare if most of the parents leave the playroom and join other in the coffee and socializing room while one or more parents remain with the kids?
Churches often have more than one room.
Is it daycare if all the parents and kids are together at one location and one parent leaves for 10 minutes to run an errand?
Is it daycare if one parent takes three children over to the play area at the park while two other parents remain at a picnic table chatting?
As usual you are down in the weeds about the rules being the rules, no matter how absurd they are. You are a good little subject of the state.
BTW a background perv check is pointless. I doubt many registered pervs apply for daycare licenses if they are forbidden to be around children, so only those who haven’t been caught yet will be watching the children. Parents can feel much safer knowing their children are being watched by smarter, more devious pervs who have so far avoided detection.
Licensing and perv checks?
It would appear the people who join the group aren’t particularly convinced of the need for those things or they would be doing that already.
“As usual you are down in the weeds about the rules being the rules, no matter how absurd they are. ”
What’s absurd is blowing smoke about this being a parent socializing event when some parents are not even present 🙂
From the linked article…
“For 45 years, parents have brought their two-year-olds to the Lutheran Church of the Reformation as part of a cooperative play school endeavor. It’s a chance to socialize with other haggard moms and (presumably some) dads dealing with the terrible twos, and it’s volunteer run.”
and from the groups’ website…
Capitol Hill Cooperative Playschool is a cooperative, a wholly parent-run playgroup for Capitol Hill 2 year olds. CHCPS is non-denominational. The CHCPS experience provides a warm, supportive environment for 2-year-old play as well as the opportunity for parents to meet other families in the neighborhood.
Speaking of blowing smoke, I notice you left out the clearly stated purpose of providing a playgroup for kids, focusing only on parent socializing.
Just an oversight, I’m sure.
“What’s absurd is blowing smoke about this being a parent socializing event when some parents are not even present.”
You don’t know that. As usual you don’t know what’s going on, but can’t keep yourself from commenting on it anyway.
It is a fine line between day care and a play date I suppose. If I ask the neighbors to watch my kids for a bit, have a play date with another parent, and leave my cell phone as an emergency number, do they have to get licenses? Seems like there should be other considerations including whether these parents are actually getting paid for their work.
All the arguments about what this group is and is not miss the real point. Namely that these are government regulations no one needs and no one but the pointed headed bureaucrats want.
Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg, as I am sure there are many more regulations equally stupid floating around out there.
The Washington DC Office of the State Superintendent of Education (51st state?) has common core curriculum all the way to infant.
The co-op preschool parents better get with the program for their two year old kids, because DC has had it planned for you since your child was an infant.
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/DC%20Early%20Learning%202015.pdf
This Washington DC?
Washington Metro System Failed to Learn From Accidents, Report Finds
The capital region’s subway system has failed to adequately learn from a series of dangerous and sometimes fatal episodes in recent years, making “little or no progress” toward instituting a culture of safety, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded on Tuesday.
The assessment came as the board discussed the findings of a more than yearlong investigation into a fatal instance of smoke filling a tunnel in January 2015.
“When the N.T.S.B. finds itself issuing a continuous stream of accident reports to address the basic safety management of a single transit rail system, something is fundamentally flawed,” Christopher A. Hart, the board’s chairman, said. “Here, that something is safety oversight.”
Yup, that Washington DC.
The corollary to the Perry maxim that “Competition breeds Competence”
“Lack of competition breeds incompetence.”
Your children are MINE!!
https://wundergroundmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/hitler-youth.jpg
Too many busy-bodies !!!
Good post!
The basic problem is the idea that 1) we can eliminate all risk and 2) the government is the way to do it. Consider food safety. Many of the food poisoning cases in recent years have been from greens, which are not cooked and hard to wash. These happen even in restaurants that have passed gov inspection because you can’t see or smell the germs. No inspection program can eliminate all risk. Conversely, real risks from restaurant workers with Hepatitis or AIDS (back before we knew more about aids) were off limits to protect against because “ism”. Life necessarily has risks–are we going to eliminate driving? I am not bothered by eating at a dirty restaurant and it is not the gov business to make me. Some people do risky sports and again it is no one’s business. To Walt’s point about feeding the homeless–sure they have a tiny chance of getting sick, but compared to eating out of a dumpster and sleeping on the street? Not significant.
This is all part of the “swamp” Trump promised to drain. Now I know he can’t do anything about purely local issues such as this, but unfortunately from where I sit, the “swamp” has at best gone down less than one inch, when it needs to be drained completely. And I say this living in a county that just elected a bunch of swamp fillers, rather than swamp drainers to local offices.