Ready to lose free after school?

[Anonymous]

If funding cuts do affect after school, I wouldn't expect any answers until either right before school starts or after school starts, with the loss of programs during the school year. I've been teaching a long time and schools never have their crap together. Parents should have a back up plan or just go with a different plan altogether, now, to meet the needs of their family. It sucks but this is life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not Title 1 that pays for OSTP it's a grant called twenty first century. (Or something like that). Mr. Orange is keeping Title 1 but eliminating the twenty first century grant which is what pays for after school programming that funds OSTP here in DC and all over the country. And since the bill passed--then that means there won't be programming next school year. I don' tknow why there isn't more attention to the matter .

If this is the case then yes, DC government needs to message about this now. If parents will have to pay, if numbers will be reduced at schools, if they will do it for few hours (maybe until 4:30 instead 6:00 or whatever), or if programs are cut. Or if DC will keep it funded at its current level but cut something else. Parents need to know as soon as possible. And I would hope DC already had these scenarios worked out before this bill passed because they knew it would.

The FY26 budget is with Council now and still very much in flux until nearly the end of July. There is time to make the adjustments from current spending proposals to find other funding for at least this coming year to cover the OSTP/21CCLC grant. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that much money compared to DC local funds. You're not seeing broad communication from elected officials/DCPS/OSSE about this yet because they just don't know the full impact.

The other challenge will be the families kicked off of Medicaid and SNAP in the coming year, which will reduce the number of families designated as "at-risk" under Title 1 (they won't be any less at-risk...). That's not a problem for this coming school year, as I understand it, but could have cascading effects in SY 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean summer school is at risk too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see why it's not realistic that the city council provide additional funding to make up for whatever the lost amount of funding that occurs due to this from the federal gov't or the bill that passed today or whatever is the issue here. And I know $ isn't infinite but they can and should take from something else since our children having a safe place after school is more important than MOST other things.

Council could do this, but should only do it with income limits. All UMC families should have to pay. The current situation where some UMC families pay and others don’t doesn’t seem feasible to me with DC’s finances.

How would this work. Our school currently has funds for a mediocre non-enriching program for all. Now the funds would only be for title 1 kids, maybe a sliding scale, and some parents can buy our way in? Can’t imagine the principal having to take on yet another task. And realistically those parents with money won’t pay for these non-enriching programs. UMC like me will prefer to pay more for private programs. The current program will be more segregated.

If we need more taxes from the UMC then raise rates or expand services that must apply existing sales taxes (private school tuition comes to mind).

I don’t know. Maybe they could do it the way other schools in DC manage to have a sliding scale based on income/need?

A sliding scale is how our school manages, plus optional enrichment classes for an additional cost (i.e. chess, dance).

But who sets this up? Principal or some type of parent org? Asking because I am at a T1 with no real options. Are these offered at “better” lottery-in type schools with involved parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see why it's not realistic that the city council provide additional funding to make up for whatever the lost amount of funding that occurs due to this from the federal gov't or the bill that passed today or whatever is the issue here. And I know $ isn't infinite but they can and should take from something else since our children having a safe place after school is more important than MOST other things.

Council could do this, but should only do it with income limits. All UMC families should have to pay. The current situation where some UMC families pay and others don’t doesn’t seem feasible to me with DC’s finances.

How would this work. Our school currently has funds for a mediocre non-enriching program for all. Now the funds would only be for title 1 kids, maybe a sliding scale, and some parents can buy our way in? Can’t imagine the principal having to take on yet another task. And realistically those parents with money won’t pay for these non-enriching programs. UMC like me will prefer to pay more for private programs. The current program will be more segregated.

If we need more taxes from the UMC then raise rates or expand services that must apply existing sales taxes (private school tuition comes to mind).

I don’t know. Maybe they could do it the way other schools in DC manage to have a sliding scale based on income/need?

A sliding scale is how our school manages, plus optional enrichment classes for an additional cost (i.e. chess, dance).

But who sets this up? Principal or some type of parent org? Asking because I am at a T1 with no real options. Are these offered at “better” lottery-in type schools with involved parents?

Our immersion charter offers an enriching aftercare program that the school created. They have aftercare staff but also some school staff help run it. It is a sliding scale based on need and income. Good combo of playing and enrichment with art, dance, soccer, chess, karate, etc… Enrichments offered might rotate or depends on the quarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean summer school is at risk too?

I’m sure it is. Although honestly I’d rather they cut summer school than aftercare for kids who need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean summer school is at risk too?

I’m sure it is. Although honestly I’d rather they cut summer school than aftercare for kids who need it.

Unpopular opinion -- my kids went through a T1 with free aftercare. The aftercare was quite bad. It was also mostly utilized by the kids of MC and UMC parents who both worked full time (and could have paid). The vast majority of "at risk" kids went home with a parent at 3:15.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone contacted their councilperson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean summer school is at risk too?

I’m sure it is. Although honestly I’d rather they cut summer school than aftercare for kids who need it.

Unpopular opinion -- my kids went through a T1 with free aftercare. The aftercare was quite bad. It was also mostly utilized by the kids of MC and UMC parents who both worked full time (and could have paid). The vast majority of "at risk" kids went home with a parent at 3:15.

PP again and it’s similar at my child’s school in terms of which kids use the aftercare. But the school offers fantastic activities after school that get a mix of kids who participate- chess, theater, soccer. That would be a shame to lose. I’m fine paying for these but I know many kids couldn’t afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see why it's not realistic that the city council provide additional funding to make up for whatever the lost amount of funding that occurs due to this from the federal gov't or the bill that passed today or whatever is the issue here. And I know $ isn't infinite but they can and should take from something else since our children having a safe place after school is more important than MOST other things.

Council could do this, but should only do it with income limits. All UMC families should have to pay. The current situation where some UMC families pay and others don’t doesn’t seem feasible to me with DC’s finances.

+1

You can’t just give free aftercare to all students at Title 1 schools.

Does anyone know what currently determines if a school gets free aftercare? We're at a Title I school with free breakfast/lunch but aftercare is not free.

Are you sure you’re actually at a T1? Free lunch is more generous after a shift in USDA rules. L-T, Peabody/Watkins and Bancroft are examples of schools that get free lunch but are not T1.

+1

I thought all Title 1 schools get free aftercare. My child’s school does.

We haven't been at a Title 1 school since before the pandemic, but when we were, the aftercare was not universally free — it was a charter school, though, so maybe that's why. But we paid more for aftercare there than we do in upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see why it's not realistic that the city council provide additional funding to make up for whatever the lost amount of funding that occurs due to this from the federal gov't or the bill that passed today or whatever is the issue here. And I know $ isn't infinite but they can and should take from something else since our children having a safe place after school is more important than MOST other things.

Council could do this, but should only do it with income limits. All UMC families should have to pay. The current situation where some UMC families pay and others don’t doesn’t seem feasible to me with DC’s finances.

+1

You can’t just give free aftercare to all students at Title 1 schools.

Does anyone know what currently determines if a school gets free aftercare? We're at a Title I school with free breakfast/lunch but aftercare is not free.

Are you sure you’re actually at a T1? Free lunch is more generous after a shift in USDA rules. L-T, Peabody/Watkins and Bancroft are examples of schools that get free lunch but are not T1.

+1

I thought all Title 1 schools get free aftercare. My child’s school does.

We haven't been at a Title 1 school since before the pandemic, but when we were, the aftercare was not universally free — it was a charter school, though, so maybe that's why. But we paid more for aftercare there than we do in upper NW.

I do think charter schools are more likely to
charge money. There are economies of scale issues with charters that don’t exist with DCPS.

[Anonymous]

To clarify we're talking about the OSTP program with DCPS which is what is losing (well, the whole country) the grant that the federal government gives for afterschool and summer school programs. It was cut as part of the Big Bill that allows us to get our $$$ tax cuts.

[Anonymous]

If my DCPS school is not T1 and I pay for aftercare, can I assume it’s safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my DCPS school is not T1 and I pay for aftercare, can I assume it’s safe?

Yes, I would think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is not free daycare.

+1000 Why don't parents have to pay for their own kids after school care why is it the responsibility of the government to?

You’re…mad about free aftercare so people can work? Yeesh

Why is it called aftercare at all-school should just go to 5.

How are you going to convince teacher to work an extra 1.5 hours, presumably for free? 😂