• I love the fall, and every year, my family and I visit the Catskill Mountains.
• To make the most of the trip, my two sons usually take a day or two off school.
• However, missing the time sometimes causes stress, and I wish they had personal days.

Fall is my favorite time of year, and it just so happens that our most loved destination — the Catskill Mountains — is breathtaking in October. When we first started our Catskill family getaways in 2020, we went in the summer when the landscape was lush and green. We've been there in winter to witness snow-covered mountains and in spring, when the ground is thawing. However, my favorite time to visit is during peak foliage in autumn. I refuse to miss the colorful mountainscape simply because my kids don't get a fall break.

But taking a couple of days off is not as simple as it should be.

Making up the work can be daunting

This year, my boys are in middle and high school, and we wanted to take two days off school to extend a weekend; however, a hefty workload left them uneasy about missing more than one day. I encouraged them to ask their teachers for work ahead of time so they wouldn't be scrambling to catch up later, but most teachers didn't have lesson plans completed in advance.

While away, they logged in to their school program in between activities to complete some work remotely. When we returned home on Sunday, they finished some lingering assignments, but they weren't completely caught up from the one missed school day until later that week.

My 15-year-old is less fazed by having to complete makeup work. A day away from school doesn't stress him all that much. But my 12-year-old reminds me of myself when I was a student; he worries about the work until it's completed. I wish we could escape for a day or two without the stress of math worksheets and language arts passages looming over his head. Kids deserve a few days away from school each year, no questions asked.

There's value in spending time with family

This year, again, we escaped to a fall wonderland that my children will never forget. We took a short walk to an overlook to see the foliage from above, visited the Sundown Wild Forest where a yellow canopy covered Peekamoose Blue Hole, and continued our yearly tradition of visiting the Bethel Woods Center for their Peace, Love and Pumpkins festival after dark.

The next day, we took a ski lift to the top of Hunter Mountain to admire the fall views from another vantage point. At night, we spent time around the fire pit listening to water rush over rocks in the nearby stream. We had family meals together at restaurants and a night in, cooking at our cabin in the woods. It was a cozy experience that no school day will ever provide.

Giving kids personal days would make much-needed family getaways more accessible

Our school district — in compliance with state laws — focuses heavily on attendance. They communicate their strict attendance expectations during orientations, back-to-school night, and via email. In fact, in the past, when we were unaware that a doctor's note was required for sick days, our kids accrued the 10 allowable guardian-reported absences, and then, alarmingly, a truancy note arrived in our mailbox.

But what if kids were given personal days? What if they could take a few days off each year without having to make up all the work? We should recognize that resetting in nature is self-care. Spending time with family in the great outdoors should be encouraged.

I want them to be able to escape stress-free

Many companies provide their employees with a few personal days each year. We recognize that situations arise — aside from illness — that may require someone to take a day or two off. Why do we fail to provide the same for our kids? With the growing demands and complexity of childhood today, they may need it even more than we do.

Our fall visits to the Catskills are perfection, and they will always be worth a day or two away from school. But I wish we could escape completely, free from quizzes, book reports, and math worksheets. Perhaps one day sneaking to the mountains will be stress-free just as it should have been all along.

• Gen Zers are much less likely to have at least one kid than older generations at the same age.
• Not wanting kids, affordability problems, and medical challenges are plausible reasons.
• Having at least three kids is becoming less common across income percentiles, except in the top 1%.

Birth rates in the US have been falling for decades, but there's been an especially large drop in the likelihood of Gen Zers in their 20s having a kid compared with their older peers at the same age.

For 26-year-old Gen Zers, the likelihood of having at least one kid was 26%, down from 47% for millennials, 50% for Gen X, and 46% for boomers at that age. There were also differences between Gen Z and older generations in the probability of wanting another kid.

That's based on an analysis by a group of researchers published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Julie Hotchkiss, a research economist at the Atlanta Fed, told Business Insider the analysis controls for education, partnership status, and some health conditions. The analysis uses National Survey of Family Growth data up to 2023.

From affordability challenges to concerns about the future, there are several likely reasons behind the lower probabilities. Hotchkiss said that a lower desire to have kids is one explanation.

Gen Zer Brooklen Farley said in an as-told-to Business Insider essay in 2023 that she decided during college she didn't want to have kids. Farley is worried about issues like the economy and climate crisis.

"Many people call us Zoomers, but honestly, a lot of us are doomers: We feel pessimistic about the future and don't want to subject our children to it," she said.

The research also notes that there's been a rise in medical challenges related to having kids. The researchers looked at impaired fecundity, or trouble becoming pregnant or carrying to term. The average probability of impaired fecundity at 26 was 18% for Gen Z compared to 10% for boomers at that age. The probabilities are higher for older ages — the likelihood for 40-year-old millennials was about 30%, higher than the 26% for Gen Xers at that age.

"If we want to talk about birth rates, we can't just talk about preferences," Hotchkiss said. "It's not just that darned younger generation not wanting, just being selfish and not wanting to have children. There's also really a very real medical issue that needs to be addressed."

Another problem is all the financial costs that come with being a parent. LendingTree found the cost of raising a kid for over 18 years adds up to $303,418 after tax exemptions and credits, or about $17,000 a year.

Affordability issues aren't just a Gen Z problem. Surrounded by a large family growing up, millennial Lizzie Lawson said in a Business Insider essay that she assumed she would also have a large family one day.

"When I was a kid in the early 2000s, my dad was an electrician and sole provider for our growing family of eight," Lawson said in a Business Insider essay, adding that her family got by with the help of coupon cutting and hand-me-downs. "Money was tight, but we also owned a house in a safe suburb, and my parents sent six kids to Catholic school from K-8."

Lawson, a college instructor whose husband is a physical therapist with $100,000 in student loans, said the economy is different from the one she grew up in.

"We can't afford to have one of us stay at home, and there aren't enough coupons in the world to cover the rising cost of day care," she said.

Having large families is rarer than in the past

Michael Konczal, vice president of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, said in his newsletter that across income percentiles, families with at least three kids have become less common since the 90s, except at the top 1%.

"A third kid isn't new for them; what's new is that it has become rarer for everyone else," he said. "Compared with the 1990s, families with three or more kids became less common overall and among the rest of the top 10%. The top 1%'s estimated share barely changed, though the uncertainty is substantial. Maybe all the stresses that made childbearing more difficult over the past 30 years just bounced right off the 1%?"

The US fertility rate has cooled to 1.6 births per woman, below the 2.1 replacement rate, which Hotchkiss said would translate to slower population growth. The Congressional Budget Office projects that just a few years from now, the number of births in the US could fall below the number of deaths, which could have implications in future decades.

"Over time, the negative net contribution of births and deaths increasingly offsets the positive contribution of net immigration, until population growth slows to zero in 2056. The population is projected to shrink thereafter," the CBO said.