Are We Building Child Care Systems Or Seats

NYC is pushing toward universal city-run child care, and depending on who you ask, it’s either a long-overdue lifeline or a wrecking ball aimed at private programs. I’m holding both truths at once: expanding access can change family budgets, boost workforce participation, and bring better early childhood education wages and standards. But if we ignore what makes child care actually run, we’re about to learn the hard way that good intentions don’t operate a system.

We break down the real trade-offs behind universal childcare policy: market displacement when “free” enters the room, fewer provider choices over time, and the uncomfortable question of long-term public funding sustainability. Then we get to the point that decides success or failure: childcare infrastructure. Not vibes. Physical space, staffing pipelines, training, coaching, enrollment systems, compliance tracking, leadership capacity, and all the unglamorous operational work that keeps quality from collapsing when scaling up.

Follow me :

Website:  https://www.abbreviatedlearning.com
Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/abbreviatedlearning
Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/abbreviatedlearning

Transcript

Welcome And The Core Question

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Welcome to Stumbling Through Work where Educators Figure Shit Out. The podcast for educators and anyone who ever walked into their program and said, Nope, not today. I'm your host, Jared Huff, here to unpack the wild stories, broken systems, and to call out the chaos. Let's get into it. Hey team, welcome to another episode of Stumbling Through Work where educators figure shit out. Alright, today we're not going, you know, we're not going to do the usual this policy is terrible or this policy is amazing. Because the truth is, what we're talking about today is kind of both. New York City is pushing towards universal city-run child care. And depending on who you ask, this is either the solution families have been begging for or the beginning of the end for private child care. And here's the reality: both sides are correct. They're right. But what nobody's really talking about is the piece that actually determines whether this is going to work or fail. Infrastructure. I say it all the time. I know you guys knew I was going to say it. Infrastructure, not vibes, not intentions, not headlines, but basic ECE infrastructure. Let's start with what actually, you know, what's actually working or at least could work. Because ignoring the positives make you sound out of touch. So access is expanding. Families who couldn't afford now they can, and that matters. Childcare costs in the United States are borderline irrational. For a lot of families, it's rent, child care, you just choose one. So when the government actually steps in and says, you know, we'll cover it, that removes such a massive barrier. Workforce participation goes up. When parents, especially mothers, have access to child care, they work more, they earn more. The economy benefits overall. And this isn't theoretical. This is backed by decades of labor data. Now, you know, sometimes the government acts like this stuff doesn't exist, but I promise you all, the labor data exists. So, yes, universal childcare has real economic upside. There's the possibility of standardization, you know, in theory, a centralized system can set baseline quality expectations, require training, um, aligned curriculum, and compared to the current system, which is kind of a mix of high-quality programs with under-resourced programs, mixed in with the little British Trying to Survive programs. There's an argument that standardization could raise the floor. And higher wages for educators. Let's be honest, the public system tends to pay more. That's not a small thing. ECE has a retention problem, and part of it is simple. People can't afford to stay in the field. And see, with government programs, they pay higher wages, they tend to offer free care, they're backed by taxpayer funds. Public preschool teachers are starting around seven to sixty-nine to seventy thousand dollars in New York City. That's where they're starting at versus the somewhere around$50,000 in private centers. It just is what it is. So if public programs increase wages, that should stabilize the workforce on some level. Let's shift. Let's take a shift real quick because everything I just said comes with a trade-off. There is the market displacement, it is real. When you introduce free into a market, and I think we've all seen that we've worked with programs that offer things that are free. It is not competition, it's dominant. Private providers can't, they just can't compete with you know taxpayer funds, they can't compete with higher wages, subsidized operations. So what happens? They close. Which it is in the beginning because you have private places, you now have this public situation, but long term, fewer providers equals fewer choices. Those options that you had they died out, so you're kind of not left with that anymore. And see, once those private and nonprofit programs just disappear, you don't get them back easily. When they're gone, they're kind of just gone because now the system has almost in a way become monopolized. So now families are left with whatever the system offers. That's it. And then costs don't disappear, it just shifts. Free childcare is not free. I kind of want to be clear about that. Nothing in this world is free as we know. Free childcare is not free, it's publicly funded. And in this case, what we're talking about is tens of thousands per child, billions annually. So the question becomes: is this financially sustainable long term? Because if it's not, then cuts are going to happen. And when cuts happen in a centralized system, there is no backup. And let's be honest, nobody wants to pay more in taxes. Then we're looking at the workforce drain from private centers. That one is really, really important to me because higher public wages sound good until you realize that the workforce has to come from somewhere. And right now it comes from private centers. So you're not solving the workforce shortages, you're just redistributing it. And I feel like people aren't really grasping that part of it. So we we have now talked about the positives and the negatives. Now, here's the part that actually determines whether this succeeds or fails. Infrastructure. You know I had to say it again. And I need you to hear this clearly. Child care is not just a service, it's a system. And the system requires infrastructure in three critical area areas. One is physical infrastructure. So you need buildings, classrooms, license compliance, safety standards. You can't just expand childcare without space. And in cities, especially metropolises like New York, space is expensive and is limited. So now you're either retrofitting buildings, rushing approvals, or overcrowding the programs. None of those are quality strategies. Then when we look at the workforce infrastructure, you need qualified teachers, directors who can lead systems, ongoing training, coaching. Is this happening? I have no idea. Do I hope that it's happening? Yes, I do. Because no one has reached out to me for guidance. I'm playing. I'm playing, but I'm serious, but I'm not. And see, here's the problem. We've already done, we've already don't have enough people. We just don't. So expanding the system without expanding the workforce pipeline that creates burnout, underqualified staffing, and inconsistent quality. Then there's also that operational infrastructure. And see, this is where this is where the silence is happening. This is kind of where people just want things to happen and they kind of just fall into place. They don't fall into place. Either they usually just blow up in your face and they have a whole bunch of problems because this is where this is your enrollment system, your staffing models, your compliance tracking, your financial stability, leadership capacity. All of this happens within that operational infrastructure. And here's the issue: the government is really good at funding when they want to. The government is good at funding. It is not always good at operations. That's the thing. Government operations are terrible. They are the worst. And I think we all kind of know that. That's why everyone gets pissed at the DMV. That's why we feel like when you try to call the state, you talk to 42 different people, and then they say talk to this person, you go to that person. Operations is the operations just trash. So what happens? Programs open before systems are ready. Directors are overwhelmed, policies don't match reality, and suddenly we're talking about, you know, we're not talking about access anymore, we're talking about survival. And let's talk numbers because that part matters. So I did some looking, and this pilot program they're running, they're they're doing right now, is gonna cost about$73 million. And that$73 million is for about 2,000 children. So that's about$36,000 per child, which is about$13,000 more than the average private child care cost. And the long-term projections, that's about six billion dollars annually. Let me say that again. So now you've got to ask, is this sustainable? I hope that it is, because if it's not, then what happens when you know funding shifts, political priorities change, budget cuts get cut, budget cuts get cut. Um you've already pushed private providers out so you don't have that fallback. And here's the other part that's a little frustrating because this didn't have to be, you know, either or a smarter approach would have been to build the infrastructure first, then you expand next. So let me say that again: you build your infrastructure first, you get everything in place, and then you begin to expand. And so, what I mean by that is investing in existing providers, the space is already there, licensing has already been there. So, why reinvent the wheel? You strengthen the workforce pipelines, you're supporting directors, not just funding seats because there's a big difference there. Creating public-private partnerships instead of replacing the system, and that seems to be what's happening. You are replacing the system instead of working with you have to increase it and make it better. You stabilize it and then you grow it. Scaling fast in the way that they are usually breaks quality. Even supportive exports are a warning that when systems expand too quickly, the quality drops. I can say from my own experiences, I have worked with companies that have grown way too quickly, and watching them grow so quickly, it became a money situation, and then our quality dropped a lot, and then I had to go. But when systems ex you know, when systems do expand quickly like that, it it it just it happens. The quality drops, the training becomes inconsistent, um, the oversight weakens, and we've seen this internationally, we've seen it in other states, I've seen it within my own experience, and we're definitely like we're always seeing it in child care because child care is not just seats, it's not just ratio, it's not square footage, it's relationships, it's consistency, it's leadership, and those don't scale overnight. So here's my clean takeaway from this whole situation. Universal childcare is not a bad idea. I am all for it. It's just all in how we do it. Because implementation without infrastructure, that's where the system fails. Because if you expand too fast, if you ignore work-force realities, if you destabilize existing providers, you don't fix child care, you rebuild it under pressure, and that rarely ends well. And so here's the questions I want you to sit with. Are we building childcare systems or are we just funding childcare seats? Do we want more access or do we want more options? Because those are not the same things, and if we don't get that right, we're going to keep solving the problem and recreating it at the same time. Send this to someone that needs to hear it, and we'll be right back. Okay, quick break. If you're a teacher or a director who's currently stumbling through work, and I mean that literally, figuratively, or spiritually, you need to check out our new merch. We've got shirts that say exactly what you want to say in staff meetings, what you want to say to parents, mugs for caffeine that hold your entire personality together, and gear so you can walk into the building already announcing, nope, I don't have time for this today, without even opening your mouth. These are perfect for the classroom, the office, or the car where you sit for 12 minutes pretending you're going to quit. Again, grab your shirts, your mugs, and your survival merch at abbreviatedlearning.com because if you're gonna stumble through work anyway, you might as well look good doing it. Welcome back. It's time for our This Is Why You're Struggling section. And our leadership problem today is managerial task. This one is going to make a lot of leaders uncomfortable because this isn't about teachers, this isn't about parents, this is about directors, and more specifically, directors who think delegation means disappearing. You are accountable for everything. I know last week we talked about delegation and how you need to delegate things, but here's the thing delegation also doesn't remove responsibility. You need to understand every system in your center. And everyone goes, yes, absolutely, leadership. Yeah, that makes sense. But then you walk into half of these centers, and the director doesn't know how enrollment works, how ratios are being managed, what the lesson plans actually look like, and why the cook just quit. So today we're talking about the difference between being in charge and actually being in control. Delegation has been misunderstood. Let's let's just go ahead and fix this immediately. Delegation is not, I don't deal with that anymore. No, delegation is you're executing it, I'm still accountable for it. There's definitely a difference, and those are very, very different things. Because what I see all the time is this version of leadership. My admin handles that, or my lead teachers and stuff, they handle the curriculum and licensing. Oh, that's just in a binder somewhere over there. And then something goes wrong, and suddenly the director is like, wait, wait, wait, what happened? No, you don't get to be surprised. If it lives in your building, it lives under your responsibility. Let's look at the desk director. Let's talk about that. And that director lives in the office, door closed, computer open, busy. Now I'm gonna put busy in quotes. Meanwhile, the classrooms are struggling, staff are making decisions in isolation, systems are being held together with duct tape and vibes, and the director is leading. No, you're administrating paperwork. Leadership requires visibility, not once a week, not when licensing walks in, but daily. Because if your staff only sees you when something is wrong, you're not leading the program, you're reacting to it. Now, I agree with the message, you should understand every role in your center. But let's not confuse that with you need to do everyone's job. That's definitely not what I said, because you don't. But you do need to know what a smooth classroom transition looks like. You should understand that. You should understand how attendance is actually tracked. You should know what happens when a parent calls pissed off. What do you do if your cook doesn't show up at 7 a.m.? Because here's the real test. If your entire staff calls out tomorrow, could you keep the building open? Not perfectly, but operationally? You should. Because if the answer is no, you're not leading a system, you're depending on one. The whole conversation is not actually about being involved, it's about infrastructure. Because strong directors don't rely on memory, they rely on systems. So instead of I think they handle that, I'm pretty sure you know that's done. You should have clear processes, clear documentation, and clear accountability. Because when something breaks and it will, you don't want to figure it out in real time. You want to say, here's the process, here's the gap, here's the fix. That's leadership, not panic. Now let's be fair, because this isn't always laziness. Sometimes it's just burnout, overload, survival mode. Because directors are juggling staffing shortages, licensing pressure, parents' complaint, financial stress. So what do they do? They pull back, they delegate harder, they stay in the office because it feels like that's the only place they can breathe. But see, here's the problem: the more you disconnect, the worse the system gets. And then you have to disconnect more, and now you're in this weird cycle. So let's define it clearly. Real leadership in childcare is being able to walk into any room in your building and understand what's happening within 30 seconds. That is my rule. I can walk into any school and tell you what's happening in 30 seconds. Because I'm good like that. Because I mean, yes, I am, but because I understand systems and I know how things should be running. And you should understand this not because you're micromanaging, but because you know your system. It's checking in with staff before things go wrong, before things break, knowing your numbers before there's a problem, understanding your workflow before someone quits. And it's also stepping in when needed without making it a crisis. Because nothing destroys confidence faster than a director who looks lost. Because, see, let me tell you, staff sees it, parents feel it, and now your authority is gone. And here's the part that no one really wants to say. If your program falls apart when you're not there, there's a system problem. If your program falls apart when you are there, that is a leadership problem. And leadership is not titles, is not credentials, years of experience, it's awareness, it's readiness, accountability, and most importantly, presence. So here's the question I want you sitting with. Do you run your center or do you know your center? Because those are not the same thing. So let me say it one more time. Do you run your center or do you know your center? And if you don't know how it operates, if you don't know how it breaks, if you don't know how it recovers, then you're not leading infrastructure. You're managing outcomes, and outcomes without systems don't last. And we'll be right back after this break. So, are you an educator watching everyone else get promoted, watching everyone else get raises, or even get the recognition for things you've literally have been doing forever? That's why we offer educational career development coaching designed for teachers, directors, and leaders who want to move up, earn more, and actually get the credit for the work they do. We work on interviews, resumes, salary negotiation, leadership confidence, communication skills, and how to stop letting your admin gaslight you into believing you're not ready yet. You are ready, you just need the strategy. Book your session at abbreviatedlearning.com and start moving towards the title, salary, and respect you deserve. Because stumbling through work is funny, but stumbling through your career is not. And we are back with asking for a friend. Here we go. Maybe it's just me, but this feels like a backhanded compliment, and I wonder if anyone else feels the same. I hate when people say, I could never do what you do about working with children. People without kids often say this about parenting, while those who are parent but don't work with children tend to add something about other people's kids being different, like intolerable. How do you feel about this? Hmm. So I processed it for a second and you know, I was like, you know, let's talk, let's talk about it. You know, you've I mean we've heard it, I've heard it, you've heard it, we've all heard it. I think everyone in ECE has heard this before. I could never do what you do, and it's always said the same way a little admiration, a little horror, a little you're built different. And you're standing there like, is this a compliment, or did you just call my job unbearable? So let's start here because intent matters a little. Most people think they're being nice, they think they're saying you're patient. You're strong, you're special. But what it sounds like is your job looks like chaos, and I would emotionally collapse within seven minutes. And honestly, they're not completely wrong, but also that's not the point. Here's why that statement hits weird. Because it's not just about you being amazing, it's also about them saying that job has no appeal, no status, and no part of me wants anything to do with it. And that's where it crosses that line from compliment to subtle disrespect. Because imagine saying that about literally any other profession. I could never be a nurse. Well, I feel like we deal with the same foolishness as nurses, so I guess that tracks. Um, I could never be a lawyer. Fine. I could never do your job. That looks awful. See, now we've got a problem. But see, within education, people say it casually, like it's normal to view your profession as something tolerable only by superheroes or people who didn't lost their minds. Now, let's layer it in my professional favorite. Well, other people's kids are different. Oh, you mean children? Those are children because what people are really saying is I love my child, but I don't trust myself to function around a group of them. Which again is honest, but also exposes something bigger. Most adults don't actually know how to exist in environments with children unless they're personally connected. That's not a personality trait, that's a skill gap. And ECE and educators, you have that skill. You weren't born with it, you just developed it. Now, here's the part where I'm going to slightly disagree with the frustration because a lot of them actually couldn't do what you do. Not because they're incapable as humans, but because they just don't have the training, the exposure, the tolerance for controlled chaos, the ability to manage 12 emotional breakdowns before 10:30 a.m. So when they say I could never, they're actually telling the truth. The issue isn't that they couldn't. The issue is that they don't think they're, you know, they just think that we're just naturally like this. Like you just woke up one day and said, you know what? I'm just built for snack distribution and conflict resolution between four-year-olds. No, this is a learned experience. This is the deeper layer. That statement reveals how society views ECE, how it views education in general. Not as skilled, trained, professional, but as emotional labor that you know some people are just good at. And that's the problem. Because when people see it as natural, it stops being valued as professional. And that's how you end up with low wages, low respect, and high expectations. All wrapped up in a nice little sentence. I can never do what you do. But I'm gonna move on. The next one is my unpopular opinions on what should go on in daycare. Y'all know how I feel about the word daycare. Number one, if a child is constantly and consistently hurting other children, then they should get a shadow. Otherwise, child care should be terminated as this is a danger and unfair towards the other children. Number two, if one teacher puts a child in timeout, the same teacher should be the one to take the child out of timeout. Number three, the children should be trained from the get-go to clean up after themselves, age appropriate obviously, after they eat. Number four, if a child is toilet trained but refuses to use the bathroom in daycare, the parents should send them in diapers and try to take them to the bathroom when they pick up and drop off. But we let them sorry, but we let them wear diapers during the day. Understand that this isn't you know doable in most centers. Okay, let's start off with the first one. Let's start off with the first part. If a child is consistently hurting others, they should get a shadow or be terminated. Okay, you came out the gate real strong with this one. But here's the thing, you're not wrong, but you're not fully right either. So let's break it down from a safety standpoint. Yes, children should not be repeatedly harmed. We all know that. Yes, staff has a responsibility to protect the group. We know that. But here's where it gets complicated ratios, staffing, licensing, reality. Because a shadow is a one-on-one support, and that sounds great until you realize most centers don't have extra staff, they don't have the funding, they don't have the labor, or approval just to assign someone a one-to-one all day. So what actually happens, the teacher becomes the shadow while still managing, you know, the other children, the other nine kids in the room, which is not a solution. That's survival. Now, getting rid of the kid, this is where it gets really uncomfortable for me. Because yes, there are cases where a program is not the appropriate placement, but we skip steps. We jump straight from this is hard to remove the child instead of you know, behavior plans, parent collaboration, environmental adjustments, consistent intervention, teacher training. Now, if all of that has been done, all of it, then yes, possibly, group care might not be the right setting, but that decision should come from the process and not from frustration. The second part that they said, the same teacher should take the child out of timeout. No, we're we're not even getting that far. We're not doing this because the real response is why is the child in timeout in the first place? Timeout is one of those things that just feels like discipline, but it act it's really just removal without teaching. So let's be clear. It doesn't build skills, putting someone in timeout doesn't regulate emotions, it doesn't teach problem solving, it doesn't repair relationships. What it does is isolates a child for having a hard time. It really makes no sense. And especially in early childhood, this is the worst time to disconnect a child because kids don't act out when they're okay, they act out when they lack skills, they act out when they're dysregulated, they act out when they're overwhelmed. And our response is go sit over there alone and figure it out. They can't, lady. That's the whole problem. So I'm just gonna move on from that one. Part three, kids should clean up after themselves. Child, this one is not unpopular. So I don't know why you said this is unpopular. This is the best practice, and we all feel this way. And honestly, this should like this shouldn't even be a debate. I shouldn't even be talking about this, but let's do it. Children are capable of cleaning, they're capable of participating, contributing at developmentally appropriate levels. The issue isn't whether they can, the issue is whether adults have the patience to teach it. Have do they have the time to reinforce it, or do they just do it themselves because it's faster? Because let's be honest, it's always faster to clean yourself. But faster is not the goal. Skill building is so, yes, children should absolutely be cleaning them after themselves. I don't clean about the children, they clean up after themselves, and I've been that way for a long time, but that requires intentional teaching and not expectations. And then the fourth part, when she said um toilet training but refusing, send them in diapers. All right, this one. This one is where policy meets reality and they fight because on paper, this makes sense. If a child refuses to use the toilet, if they're having an accident, um, if they're not successful in the environment, then yes, diapers are a logical fallback. But here's the operational issue licensing, as always, policies, parent expectations, and development. Some programs don't allow regression once toilet once once we're toilet trained. Once you start that process, it's just full steam ahead. We're not reverting back. And some don't have the staffing to frequently change it to do those changes in older classrooms. A lot of the times, once you hit those preschool pre-K classrooms, you don't have the facilities to do diaper changes and things like that. And then there's also the bigger issue. Toileting is not a skill, it's contextual. A child can be fully, I mean, fully toilet trained at home and completely shut down in a center environment. Why? Because it's a different bathroom, possibly, because maybe it's less privacy because you're watching for licensing reasons, um, for safety reasons. Um, it could be more noisy, they may want to be private about it. Um, it's less control for them. So instead of defaulting to just send them in diapers, a stronger a stronger approach is assess the environment, create consistency between home and school, build routine and comfort. Now, if accidents are constant and disruptive, yes, adjustments need to be made, but again, process before policy. Here's the pattern across all of these. Every single one is trying to solve a system problem with a rule, and that's the trap. Because childcare doesn't break because kids don't listen, it doesn't break because teachers don't care, it breaks because systems aren't strong enough to support the situation. So, what do people do? They create hard rules like terminate the child, and this teacher must do this, and parents must do that, because rules feel like control, but control is not the same as capacity. And we'll be right back. You know that moment in your day, the one when you stop, stare into the fluorescent lights, and think, There has to be a better way than whatever nonsense way we're doing right now. The best practice series is that better way, because these books, they're short, they're friendly, they're written in plain English, and not that education jargon sprinkled with fairy dust language. Hand them to your team and say, Please just do it like this so I don't lose my last good nerve. We've got guides on tours, policies, communication, safety, programming, and all the daily madness nobody warns you about. And the best part, your team will get it, families will feel the difference, and you get to breathe like a normal human again. Grab your copies at abbreviatedlearning.com or just risk another week of someone asking, wait, what's that procedure again? Hey team, welcome back to our interview corner for today. So you ask the question, how was your working relationship with your previous supervisor? And they respond with my supervisor. Oh, Brenda? Let me tell you, Brenda was the worst human ever. She's the worst human I've ever met. She's she micromanaged everything, she never helped, she sat in her office all day, and you know what? She didn't even know what she was doing, and that's why I left. Don't hire them. Do not hire them. I am telling you to your ear, do not hire them. But you know what? Some of you all will hire them. Why? Because you hire out of desperation. See, what I just heard is that they don't know how to regulate themselves. And they talk about people instead of the situation. And if things go wrong, let me tell you, you're about to be next. Because Brenda is not here to defend herself. And so I'm also thinking, was Brenda the problem, or was Brenda dealing with you? So, first, let's start off with this is actually a trap wrapped in professionalism. The question really is, it's a trap because nobody is really asking this casually. What they're really trying to figure out is are you the person that's being interviewed the problem, or was it your last job or your last supervisor? So let's break this all the way down. Let's talk about some other terrible responses. You know, if they said I basically ran the whole center, my supervisor didn't do anything, so everything fell on me. Okay. So you did everything, you carried the team, they were you were the only competent person on the team, and somehow it still didn't work out. Girl, the math isn't mathing. Or if they said something like, Well, you know, we just had different leadership styles. Oh, really? Because that tone, to me, what I just heard said tension, it said conflict, it said maybe somebody got cussed out in the parking lot, and that was a very passive aggressive answer. Now, let's just strip away the fluff of all of this and let's just get down to what it really is. You're not asking them about their feelings, you're not doing any of that. What you're trying to figure out is can they work under leadership? Because in reality, they're gonna have a supervisor again. That supervisor is gonna be the owner, that director, maybe a regional, a VP, a somebody with a title. They're going to have a supervisor again. So you want to know, do they respect authority or do they just fight it? Then you also want to know how to how do they handle conflict? Because conflict is guaranteed. When you're dealing with human beings, you're gonna have conflict. So what you're listening for is do they escalate the problem or do they just resolve it? You're looking also to see if they're self-aware. This is a big one. Do they understand their role in the situation? Do they understand what their reaction is? Do they understand communication style? Or is everything someone else's fault? And I think we've all dealt with those type of people. You're also asking yourself, will they talk about me like this later? Cause let's be honest, the real question, that's what it is. Are they gonna sit here and drag you the way they just drug Brenda down the street? Because if this doesn't work out, you already know that you're next. You know you're about to get drug as well. Now let's clean this up. Because, you know, what we want to hear as a great answer is something like this. Overall, I had a professional working relationship with my previous supervisor. We had different communication styles and leadership styles at times, but I learned a lot about how to adapt, how to stay flexible, you know, how to focus on the needs of the team and our families and children. I'm someone who values clear expectations, open communication, and I've grown into being able to navigate different leadership styles and those approaches while still contributing to the team in a positive way. Now you see that worked. That didn't trash anyone, they acknowledge the differences, they showed growth, they demonstrated professionalism, and most importantly, they made themselves sound like someone that people can work with. And let me say this clearly: interviews are not about telling their story, they're about managing their narrative because they can be right about their last job, they can be right about everything, they can be justified and how they felt about Brenda and still not get hired. Why? Because how they say things matters more than what actually happened. But if they say my supervisor Brenda was the worst human ever, I'm telling y'all, do not hire them. Please don't, and we'll be right back after the break. Listen, if your center or program is currently held together by tape, caffeine, and vibes, you might need consulting. And that's where abbreviated learning comes in. We work with childcare centers, studios, and youth programs that are doing their absolute best while simultaneously drowning in staffing issues, quality, enrollment gaps, and with that one parent who emails 14 times a day. We help you streamline your systems, fix the operational chaos, train your teachers, and get the program functioning like you're not just winging it every morning at 6 a.m. Whether you need policies, tours, staff development, or someone to just look at your program and say, okay, here's how we unjanky this. We're here for you. Visit abbreviatedlearning.com to book consulting for your center or program because stumbling through work is funny on the podcast, but not in real life. Hey team, it is policy time. And remember, something became a policy because someone then messed this shit up for all of us. Today we're talking about one of the most ignored sections of the handbook ever created. The introductory period, also known as the 90-day period, aka the probation period, or one of my favorite, that time where everyone is pretending. Because let's be honest, employees are on their best behavior, employers are on their best behavior, and nobody's showing their full personality yet. It's corporate dating with licensing requirements. Let's simplify what the handbook is saying. You have 90 days, we have 90 days, we are both just figuring out if this shit was a good decision. And at any point during those 90 days, either side can walk away. Just walk away. Also, just because you passed the 90 days doesn't mean you're locked in forever, because employment is still at will, which means you're not married, you're just not on a first date anymore. Now let's talk about why this is actually in the handbook. Because it's not just legal language, it's operational protection. Hiring is guessing. I don't care how good your interview process is, you are still making a decision based on 30 to 60 minutes of someone's best behavior. That is not reality, that is a performance. So the 90-day period exists because we need time to see who you actually are at 8 47 on a Tuesday morning when three kids are crying and snack is late. That's who I want to see. You see, training takes time. Nobody walks into a center and just gets it. They need to learn routines, expectations, systems, culture, and that doesn't happen in a week. So those 90 days, they're a ramp up period, not looking for perfection. And not everyone is a fit, and that's okay. This is the part people take personally, but fit matters. You can be an amazing teacher, you can be a kind person, you can be experienced, and still not the fit for the environment. That's not failure, that's just alignment. And here's where things go sideways because people think I just have to survive 90 days. No, that is not the goal. The goal is can I consistently meet expectations in a real environment? Because what happens is people show up like this. Week one, I'm early, I'm organized, I'm amazing. Week three, I'm still trying. Week six, they'll figure it out. Week ten, this is who I am, and now leadership is like, oh, okay, this is the real version. Let me give you a real life, completely hypothetical, definitely not real example. And her name is Brenda. Of course it is, because you know, we love Brenda on this show. Week one, Brenda shows up 15 minutes early. Her hair is done, her notebook is out, she asks questions like she's about to run the center. She says things like, I just really care about structure and consistency. And leadership team is like, Wow, we found her. This is the one. Week four. Now Brenda is comfortable. She's still doing okay, but we know we're starting to see a few things. You know, a little late. Cutting corners on transition times, you know, forgetting small procedures, nothing alarming. Just you know, just note it. Week eight. Oh, now we've met Brenda. Oh, Brenda's wig is a skewed a little bit to the left. She argues with co-workers. She's doing her own version of the schedule. She's telling new staff, we don't really do it like that. And now leadership is looking like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Who trained you? Then we make it to week 11. This is peak, Brenda. She didn't even come in with a wig today. She was late twice this week. She didn't tell the parent, yeah. I don't know why they make us do that. And now we're having a meeting. And Brenda says, I just feel like I'm being targeted. No, Brenda. You're being introduced, we're being introduced to you, and this is why there's a 90 day period. This is why. Exists because if it didn't, you'd be stuck, you know, trying to figure out a long-term problem that showed up in 60 days. Now let's flip it because this is not just about the employer judging you. You should also be asking, Do I actually want to be here? Because during those 90 days, you're seeing how leadership responds to problems, how staff communicates, how systems actually function, and it's chaotic. And if it's chaotic, if it's disorganized, there's no support, then guess what? You can leave too. That's the deal. So let's clean this up some. The introductory period is not punishment, it's not a threat, it's not prove your worth or else. It's a structured reality check for both sides. Because hiring is a risk, and this is just how we manage it. Well, that's all that I have for you on this episode. This week, make sure you know what is happening in your centers, and also take time to understand how ECE policies impact your work. And please, please use a 90-day policy so you can get rid of Brenda. And on that note, I'll talk to y'all later. Bye. Alright, that's another episode of Stumbling Through Work where educators figure shit out. If today made you laugh, think, or just say, Wow, that's my life, go ahead and subscribe and leave a review. Or share this with another educator who's one licensing violation away from quitting. I'm Jared Huff. See you next time, probably stumbling, but still showing up.