To better understand this issue, we need to also understand state regulated ratios. Ratios vary from state to state, but are close to the same in numbers. For example VA runs ratios as follows: age: 6 weeks to 16 mo: 1 teacher: 4 kids. 16mo-24mo: 1:5, 24mo-3y: 1:8. 3-5y: 1:10. Montana state ratios are slightly smaller running closer to what NAEYC (http://www.naeyc.org/) suggests as ratio standards to follow. Montana ratios: 6weeks- 23months: 1:4, 2yr-3yr: 1:8, and when a child turns 4 until the age of 5 the ratio runs: 1:10. NAEYC suggests ratios a little differently, they don't just look at teacher to child ratios, but also group size (http://www.naeyc.org/academy/files/academy/file/Teacher_Child_Ratio_Chart.pdf) All state ratios are found here: http://nrckids.org/index.cfm/resources/state-licensing-and-regulation-information/
It is important to remember that just because a facility is NAEYC accredited doesn't mean it runs with NAEYC ratios, because they are simply a suggestion from the organization.
So the average classroom runs with two teachers. Smaller facilities might run with only 1 teacher to a class. If a standard classroom, lets say a 3 year old classroom, because childcare costs go down and ratios go up as a child grows older, so a 3 year old classroom is middle ground. A standard 3 year old class will probably run with around 15 children to 2 teachers, running a 1:8 ratio up to 1:10 if needed.
So if we do that math, 15 children at $243/week (in our area for the class that turns 3 is around $200 so that is not far off) is an "income" of $3,645/week. The two teachers for that class are making (before taxes) $376/week. $752 to staff the both of them full time. Which leaves $2,893 for support staff, management wages, supplies, and operational costs such as rent/utilities, etc. To keep it simple I'm going to say wages come out to $1,145/week. (I took the average administrator wage, and support staff wage and divided it by an average of 5 classes per facility. then I rounded down to leave "wiggle room"(of about $200 for variables) So wages to run this particular room amount to roughly 31% of money brought in from parents paying child care costs. That sounds high right? Now lets look at where the other 70% of the money goes.
Rent/Utilities: "At a commercial building, you'll also pay for property taxes. Between the rent and the taxes, you could pay 15 percent of your day-care center income each month" (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/much-cost-run-daycare-11445.html)
15% of $3,645 is $546. Which is about $2,187/mo for rent which sounds about right to me. So take the $546 out of the 70% that is left, $2,550-$546=$2,004. I always round down because I like wiggle room. $2,000 is left for food, supplies, and materials.
To feed a kid each day (two snacks and a lunch- is the norm) seems to cost $7/day on average. http://www.daycarebear.ca/forum/showthread.php/270-How-much-do-you-think-you-spend-per-day-to-feed-a-daycare-child
7 multiplied by 15 is 105, times 5 days a week is $525. $2,000- $525= $1,475.
Art supplies, curriculum materials, and educational materials tend to be a larger up front cost. So to allow a budget for supplies, possible room for larger utility costs, or even more rent, AND insurance.(http://www.daycare.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8311) (depending on your facility) I will assume $475 will get eaten up. (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/budget-model-daycare-center-12879.html)
So to me that leaves $1,000 unanswered for. Maybe I am wrong, Maybe I am missing something, but for a business model that offers a service instead of a product, that feels really high to be. Especially sense we are talking about taking care of children, who are vitally important. Maybe that $1,000 gets absorbed back into the company for "rainy days" or liability or SOMETHING. It would be nice to know. Also keep in mind, these numbers are crunched based on national averages, and an average facility sized at 5 classrooms and standard staffing. So it's possible that every classroom has "extra income" at around the same amount. It's possible and I think it's a question worth asking.
Let's talk about staffing, because besides low wages, childcare regulations don't seem to cover many fundamental parts of early childhood education. One of the biggest short falls I see as a child development associate, is nap-time. Those ratios I mentioned earlier, DOUBLE at nap time. This practice is to allow child care workers to take a break, with out needing additional staff. I believe this is one of the most pressing issues that needs to change immediately. Places that are Early Learning Centers treat this time as "Teacher Planning Time" for the teacher that is left in the room. IF all the children go to sleep, it is possible to get some planning/prep done. Not much but some. However, especially in the preschool/pre-k rooms many children are transitioning out of nap, therefor are not sleeping. And somehow the teacher is expected to engage/entertain these children, and insure they stay quiet for 1-2 hours while other children sleep. The more children that wake up, the harder this becomes. Some children are capable of sitting on their cot reading books, coloring, doing puzzles, playing with sensory focused toys, etc. However every child is different and many can not be expected to sit in one spot that long doing a quiet activity. For a child at any age, holding their attention for 15 minutes is a miracle, let alone 2 hours (http://www.chrichmond.org/Services/Understanding-Attention-Span-in-the-Early-Years.htm) As a rule of thumb as EC Educators, we plan activities with a 2:1 attention ratio. Two minutes for every year old they are. So a 4 year old will probably stay with an activity for 8-10 mins. If they stay engaged longer, GREAT! If not, we have planned for it. So for nap time, for a 4 year old, we have to have about 5 different quiet activities ready to go to give them through out nap time. It is not impossible, even if multiple children are awake. It is difficult to do this while planning, completely daily paperwork, and cleaning. And to me, it is completely unnecessary. I think with some planning and adjusting nap time won't have to run with a doubled ratio, I don't see the point or the "benefit" other than saving money, and that is unacceptable in my eyes. Especially looking that the potential "leftover" profit that seems to be available. I think it is inherently dangerous. But there is more to this problem. Aside from leaving 1 teacher to put X amount of kids asleep all at the same time, (really) there is also the risk of all the children waking up before the other teacher is back from his/her break! This is something that happens more often than not. It's not just a few mins either, often it's 30 mins or more. I believe that if all the children are awake, OR if more children than what 1 teacher can have to keep state ratios normally are awake, there should be another teacher available, instantly. Because the instant the children are awake the teacher should be considered "Out of ratio" because, they are. As it stands right now, "if the light are off" (direct quote) nap-time ratio applies.
More on ratios, pertaining to the room size. In 2004, a new regulation stated that a room had to have 35 square feet per child to be appropriate and safe. Which seems huge! until you add furniture, toys, cots, cubbies, etc to the room. But even still, as a standard room size I like this regulation. The problem lyes in the amount of time the children spend in that room, which minus outside play time, is all the rest of the day. Meals, snacks, nap, and all curricular and fun activities, are all in the same room. On rainy days, the children do not leave the room at all. (some centers provide enrichment courses at an additional cost which helps, but I believe enrichment courses, and changes of scenery should be available to all children, because it would benefit all of them. Additionally it would relieve the "home room" teachers throughout the day, allow for planning time, and solve many ratio problems. Public schools use a multiple teacher system. To teach art, computer lab, gym, music, etc. School days are shorter, and there are still options for activities after school. Maybe this is something ECE should look at, and see if its something we should do as well. A 1:8 or 1:10 ratio isn't so bad if it's for 2-3 hours tops at a time. As opposed to a ratio of 1:8 for 7-8 hours straight. (4 hours back to back with a break in between or some variation of)
More on planning and prep time. Many places had a model that shows room for flexibility and teacher maneuverability. Reinforced by hiring "support staff" however this process is inherently flawed, again, because it is not enough. On any given shift there are on average 2 support staff members for every 20 or so employees (not counting management. Some of this staff might be full time, but are often part time. So on any given day only 2 people can be out (for vacation, sick leave, family leave) a day before we fall out of ratio. AND if the support staff is covering absent employees they are not available for relieving teachers for planning time. So we rely on the off chance that everyone is present, or that children attendance is low, or nap time to plan and prep our lessons. And unfortunately, many of us work off the clock to insure our class is ready. Sometimes administrative staff is used to cover ratios, cover breaks, allow for bathroom breaks. Bathroom breaks! Because ratios are run so tightly, bathroom breaks are steadily a problem. If the support staff is taken up covering absentees, we rely on management to give breaks. If the support staff isn't taken up we rely on them. Even on good days, with 20 people to break for bathroom breaks alone is a full time job for 1 person! It allows for 1 person to break all 20 people each hour, allowing 3 minutes for each. Not everyone is going to have to go each hour, and when we are all outside we combine children which often brings the ratio down enough to allow us to break together, but again this is not something we should rely on.
Bottom line we need more people, and ratios need to be adjusted or have added regulations on time spent with each teacher in each room. And there needs to be more room for flexibility. Because with children you have to think about what if. What if this were to happen, what if that were to happen. If its flu season how many teachers will we be down this year and how to do we insure we are covered. How can we have a safer environment, how can we better engage the children, how do we prevent teacher burn out, how do we insure teachers are prepared and ready each day, how do we keep children emotionally supported and encouraged with day to day practices, and what can we do better?
We need to stop operating at bare minimum in child care. We need to understand that child care is not a big money business and it is not supposed to be. Maybe the answer is no private daycare, all government provided day care. Maybe the answer is the practice we use for insurance companies, where only 25% of profit goes to administrative costs, and the remaining 75% has to be used for policies and claims, and if they exceed 25% in administrative costs they have to administer refund checks in the overage amount to their customers. What if child care followed this idea. Maybe that extra $1000 we saw in my example would go towards better playground equipment, better food, more supplies. Maybe if the numbers were adjusted we could have more staff. And if nothing else maybe parents would get a refund check because they are paying to much and not getting enough?
It's not just about the workers making more money (which obviously would be great!) It's about the parents knowing where the insane amount of money they are spending is actually going and having piece of mind that it's actually going to something that benefits their child's life.
