i know it is a favorite, but anyone else underwhelmed by Mundo Verde open house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the aggrieved poster: there are several lower-cost alternatives that will come pick your kids up from school to go to their cheaper (and let's face it, worse) aftercare. You can go to MV or YY but don't have to pay the aftercare fees. BUT the rest of the school community values and wants quality care. And it costs. So quit being so entitled.

Not sure who you think is aggrieved, but our family would love to know this info. Please name 3 or more specific such lower cost alternatives that pick up from school and provide aftercare, all for a lower cost?

Yeah, as expected, you can't name specific companies. I know families who would want to use this info, but obviously it can't be used if it was made up. Name specific companies who pick up at the school and provide care until 6:00 for less than $400/month, or we know you're just talking out of your a$$ trying to prove a false point.

[Anonymous]

^^ This post obviously meant for the "Stop being so entitled" poster. Not the one also asking for names of real companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Okay, now we are down to brass tacks, this has been the unstated assumption throughout this entire discussion. If the schools are making "a few more $$s at the cost of working class families", how much are we talking here? Can you point out to us where this information can be found? From informal discussions I have had, these programs are run at cost. That may be wrong. Please tell us how that money is being made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Okay, now we are down to brass tacks, this has been the unstated assumption throughout this entire discussion. If the schools are making "a few more $$s at the cost of working class families", how much are we talking here? Can you point out to us where this information can be found? From informal discussions I have had, these programs are run at cost. That may be wrong. Please tell us how that money is being made.

Or, if I understand your post, I think you're asking that someone tell you how that money is being used, not made, right? Because it's allegedly being made by charging more for aftercare than aftercare costs the school. Is that what you're asking, how the school uses extra funds raised by bigger aftercare costs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

It comes down to the same thing every time, charters cannot be all things to all people. They aren't meant to be. I personally don't like the upstairs-downstairs solutions offered at some schools, where the poor kids do one program and the wealthier kids have another range of options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

It comes down to the same thing every time, charters cannot be all things to all people. They aren't meant to be. I personally don't like the upstairs-downstairs solutions offered at some schools, where the poor kids do one program and the wealthier kids have another range of options.

I've never heard of this. Which schools have different programs depending on how much you can pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

It comes down to the same thing every time, charters cannot be all things to all people. They aren't meant to be. I personally don't like the upstairs-downstairs solutions offered at some schools, where the poor kids do one program and the wealthier kids have another range of options.

I've never heard of this. Which schools have different programs depending on how much you can pay?

NP- quite a few DCPS schools. Friends with a family at Oyster that complains about this. Not sure about charters, but I remember someone mentioning on DCUM that IT has separate programs (to be fair, not sure if there is cost differences).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Okay, now we are down to brass tacks, this has been the unstated assumption throughout this entire discussion. If the schools are making "a few more $$s at the cost of working class families", how much are we talking here? Can you point out to us where this information can be found? From informal discussions I have had, these programs are run at cost. That may be wrong. Please tell us how that money is being made.

Or, if I understand your post, I think you're asking that someone tell you how that money is being used, not made, right? Because it's allegedly being made by charging more for aftercare than aftercare costs the school. Is that what you're asking, how the school uses extra funds raised by bigger aftercare costs?

That's another way to look at it. The assumption in all of these comments is that the schools are somehow overcharging parents, and that it really hurts those who make too much to be subsidized, but not enough to be able to really afford it. So probably those earning between $60-90,000 a year, say. But that assumes there is some big savings over the program cost, which I have not heard about. Want to see how that savings arises, and per your point, where it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

It comes down to the same thing every time, charters cannot be all things to all people. They aren't meant to be. I personally don't like the upstairs-downstairs solutions offered at some schools, where the poor kids do one program and the wealthier kids have another range of options.

I've never heard of this. Which schools have different programs depending on how much you can pay?

NP- quite a few DCPS schools. Friends with a family at Oyster that complains about this. Not sure about charters, but I remember someone mentioning on DCUM that IT has separate programs (to be fair, not sure if there is cost differences).

Yes, IT has two different programs, and some Hill schools do as well. High SES parents will always find a way to get better aftercare; it's part of what keeps them in the public schools. I think a model that has a good sliding scale where the richer parents subsidize excellent programming for all the kids is a better solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Okay, now we are down to brass tacks, this has been the unstated assumption throughout this entire discussion. If the schools are making "a few more $$s at the cost of working class families", how much are we talking here? Can you point out to us where this information can be found? From informal discussions I have had, these programs are run at cost. That may be wrong. Please tell us how that money is being made.

Or, if I understand your post, I think you're asking that someone tell you how that money is being used, not made, right? Because it's allegedly being made by charging more for aftercare than aftercare costs the school. Is that what you're asking, how the school uses extra funds raised by bigger aftercare costs?

That's another way to look at it. The assumption in all of these comments is that the schools are somehow overcharging parents, and that it really hurts those who make too much to be subsidized, but not enough to be able to really afford it. So probably those earning between $60-90,000 a year, say. But that assumes there is some big savings over the program cost, which I have not heard about. Want to see how that savings arises, and per your point, where it goes.

I've been following this conversation and never felt like the assumption is schools are charging more than cost for the afterschool programs they're delivering. The assumption I had (and assumed was a given) is that schools have choices about *which* afterschool programming/vendors/models they use, and some schools choose more expensive models. Somewhere upthread someone did say that one school openly charges a bit more for the aftercare and uses the extra for other school costs, but I wouldn't know any details about that or if it's true. I assumed thought hat mainly, just like lunch vendors, schools have choices and some question whether the more expeonsve model is the best model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Couldn't agree more with your statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did folks who can't afford $450/month aftercare do before their kids were school-aged?

They probably only budgeted for 3 years of daycare, maybe they stayed home for 1st 3 years, maybe they had their thumb in their butt! It doen't matter. What does matter is the cost for MV and YY are high and not accessible to many families. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains. Some schools use aftercare as way to earn a few more $s at the cost of working class families.

Couldn't agree more with your statement.

So what do you think is happening with this "extra" money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I've been following this conversation and never felt like the assumption is schools are charging more than cost for the afterschool programs they're delivering. The assumption I had (and assumed was a given) is that schools have choices about *which* afterschool programming/vendors/models they use, and some schools choose more expensive models. Somewhere upthread someone did say that one school openly charges a bit more for the aftercare and uses the extra for other school costs, but I wouldn't know any details about that or if it's true. I assumed thought hat mainly, just like lunch vendors, schools have choices and some question whether the more expeonsve model is the best model.

Okay, now I see where you are going, and that makes a lot of sense. There seem to be three main drivers of cost:

1. Staff salaries
2. Staffing levels
3. Extras like field trips, high priced extra workers, expensive equipment.

I don't know exactly how much aftercare workers make, but I think it's a pretty safe assumption that they don't make that much, certainly not considering the costs of living in DC. And most of these programs don't really have that many of the "extras", it's not like they are paying some speaker $5,000 a pop to come in and do an assembly or something like that, and they don't have crazy expensive technology like huge printers or high end video cameras. So really it's primarily about staffing levels, right? Can someone talk about ballpark figures of number of workers to kids you see in aftercare? What seem like reasonable numbers? Or am I missing some other big thing that could be cut to make things cheaper?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is that MV and YY are looking to gain extra money for the school. At my DD DCPS, the aides and some other staff run the aftercare program and it's working just fine. They get off at 6, but that's probably only and extra hour and a half of their time from their regular work day. So how much extra money is that more them individually and what amount goes to the schools budget. Don't say it's to keep the lights on etc. when the cleaning staff is already there and need to use them as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've been following this conversation and never felt like the assumption is schools are charging more than cost for the afterschool programs they're delivering. The assumption I had (and assumed was a given) is that schools have choices about *which* afterschool programming/vendors/models they use, and some schools choose more expensive models. Somewhere upthread someone did say that one school openly charges a bit more for the aftercare and uses the extra for other school costs, but I wouldn't know any details about that or if it's true. I assumed thought hat mainly, just like lunch vendors, schools have choices and some question whether the more expeonsve model is the best model.

Okay, now I see where you are going, and that makes a lot of sense. There seem to be three main drivers of cost:

1. Staff salaries
2. Staffing levels
3. Extras like field trips, high priced extra workers, expensive equipment.

I don't know exactly how much aftercare workers make, but I think it's a pretty safe assumption that they don't make that much, certainly not considering the costs of living in DC. And most of these programs don't really have that many of the "extras", it's not like they are paying some speaker $5,000 a pop to come in and do an assembly or something like that, and they don't have crazy expensive technology like huge printers or high end video cameras. So really it's primarily about staffing levels, right? Can someone talk about ballpark figures of number of workers to kids you see in aftercare? What seem like reasonable numbers? Or am I missing some other big thing that could be cut to make things cheaper?

I believe that MV maintains about the same ratio during aftercare as they do during the day, but with hourly workers whom I assume are not paid as highly. Aftercare teachers can be promoted to teachers assistants, if that gives any indication. As the students leave for the day, so do the teachers; i.e., once the ratio for a grade could be met by fewer teachers, a teacher is cut. The only aftercare field trips that cost additional money that I know of are the swimming classes. Each class has six per year this year.