Ready to lose free after school?

[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? 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There isn't even enough $ to have after school programs for SOME students let alone have school for everyone go until 5:00 pm. The cost of that would be massive.

[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?

It's setup as a non-profit childcare provider. I would not have parents or principal run it as there's too much transition.

[Anonymous]

I think those types of after school programs aren't affected by this as they probably don't get federal money. But almost every single DCPS Title 1 elementary does have this program and it has thousands of students so those are the kids and families that are at risk.

[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.

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?

It's setup as a non-profit childcare provider. I would not have parents or principal run it as there's too much transition.

But WHO initiates this? Must be principal and parents selecting the provider right? And will the principal at a Title 1 school allow a provider to come in and charge parents knowing that only a select few will pay and the rest of the kids have to exit at dismissal?