Aftercare expenses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MV would be $654 per month (for people who don't qualify for reduced rates) if you needed before care/ after care and Wednesday half day coverage.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/622490/26398173/1437060643410/Summary+of+Fees+for+2015-16+at+5.pdf?token=3Mj5JfxPQxCT6udPsC%2BZ0UsgHY0%3D

How do you qualify for the reduced rate? What are the various tiers?

It follows the FARMS guidance. So if you would qualify for free meals, you pay the least. if you qualify for reduced price meals, you pay a little more. If you don't qualify for any meals assistance you pay full cost.

To qualify for free lunches, a family of 3 would have to earn about $25K annually. I don't know how a family could survive on that in this city. $88 bucks a month (not including before care) would really sting. Has MV every considered making it free for the poorest families?

Couldn't MV find a less costly aftercare provider? It's really concerning that families that qualify for free lunches would have to pay anything.

MV operates on their own for profit purposes. Bridges also charged their vendor a fee to do business there that is passed on to consumer. It feels morally wrong for a school to profit off the need of working parents.

[Anonymous]

"For profit" is misleading - it's not like the principal is personally pocketing the cash.

They use any profit from aftercare to fund other school activities - staff, programs, field trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"For profit" is misleading - it's not like the principal is personally pocketing the cash.

They use any profit from aftercare to fund other school activities - staff, programs, field trips.

Surely there's a better way to fundraise than collecting fees from families qualified for Free and Reduced Lunch. At a minimum waive their fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"For profit" is misleading - it's not like the principal is personally pocketing the cash.

They use any profit from aftercare to fund other school activities - staff, programs, field trips.

Surely there's a better way to fundraise than collecting fees from families qualified for Free and Reduced Lunch. At a minimum waive their fees.

Agreed 100%. This leads to believe they don't care about attracting low income families. With what they charge for non FARM why can't they comp FARM kids?

[Anonymous]

Or the city could increase the per pupil allocation between charters and other public schools.

It could also make out of the DPR out of school time free / low cost aftercare programs (only available to DCPS families) accessible to charter school families.

[Anonymous]

Yes, in general charter school families are paying more than DCPS families. They don't have anybody offering free aftercare to their families, even ones who qualify for FARMS. So they charge what they need to to make ends meet, or what their vendors are willing to offer, given the size of the after school population etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in general charter school families are paying more than DCPS families. They don't have anybody offering free aftercare to their families, even ones who qualify for FARMS. So they charge what they need to to make ends meet, or what their vendors are willing to offer, given the size of the after school population etc.

This isn't true across the board -- some of the larger charter operators -- notably KIPP and I think the Friendship charters -- do offer free aftercare to some or most families. There are some advantages that come with being larger -- ability to negotiate better and attract funds from corporations, private foundations and the like to make this possible. But none of the 'home grown' DC charters (so-called HRCs or not) are doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in general charter school families are paying more than DCPS families. They don't have anybody offering free aftercare to their families, even ones who qualify for FARMS. So they charge what they need to to make ends meet, or what their vendors are willing to offer, given the size of the after school population etc.

If charters, like MV, are using aftercare for fundraising purposes, then that's not making "ends meet." That means they are charging more than they need for aftercare to support other activities. Which is fine if that's what they want to do. What is perplexing is that they are willing to charge a household of 3 making $25K annually. Instead of using aftercare as a fundraising devise, why not subsidize the most needy of families? Seems like the priorities are out of whack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or the city could increase the per pupil allocation between charters and other public schools.

It could also make out of the DPR out of school time free / low cost aftercare programs (only available to DCPS families) accessible to charter school families.

The DPR free aftercare is not only available to DCPS. We are at a charter next to one and it's available for our students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in general charter school families are paying more than DCPS families. They don't have anybody offering free aftercare to their families, even ones who qualify for FARMS. So they charge what they need to to make ends meet, or what their vendors are willing to offer, given the size of the after school population etc.

If charters, like MV, are using aftercare for fundraising purposes, then that's not making "ends meet." That means they are charging more than they need for aftercare to support other activities. Which is fine if that's what they want to do. What is perplexing is that they are willing to charge a household of 3 making $25K annually. Instead of using aftercare as a fundraising devise, why not subsidize the most needy of families? Seems like the priorities are out of whack.

This. Also there are many charters where the provider comps low income.

[Anonymous]

It's not secret what MV is trying to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not secret what MV is trying to do.

That's just what Donald Trump would say!!!

You conspiracy theorists are idiots. If the families don't pay then someone else has to. Should they foist that cost on other aftercare families? Are you suggesting the school should absorb the cost? I repeat, someone has to pay for the provider, staff, insurance, food, etc. Also, who is paying for the physical facilities? At DCPS it's DCPS. At charters it is the Charters. Which means that staff, security, lights, etc are all going to come out of someone's pockets. This isn't as simple as you are all making it out to be. And what scares me is that while inevitably some of the above posters are trolls, some of you actually believe this it's all just this easy.

The vast majority of DCUM posters have never run a business or managed anything larger than (maybe) a monthly budget. But even that seems a stretch for the level of oversimplification and useless talking points that fly so freely. Budgets and public administration require decision making and hard choices. I have no idea if MV or any other school runs a profit or loss after considering, admin and variable costs. But if they do run a profit and they decide to use those funds for field trips for the students, resources for classrooms, teacher training, teacher salaries, is that bad? Not everyone uses aftercare, but every kid uses school time. Maybe that's not the trade-off you would make. It's fair to question how those decisions are made or whether the right trade-offs and considerations are being made. But those are big boy and bog girl conversations that require nuance and thinking on a level that the lizard brain charter haters and conspiracy theorists cannot possibly bring to the table. If it makes you feel better to cast this as some sort of good vs evil thing then have at it. But if any of the non-trolls that are bringing that noise think your "contributions" to the discussion are going to help bring about change or that sitting in the cheap seats throwing oranges at people who step up and put some skin in the game is somehow going to reallocate resources, well then that's just sad.

[Anonymous]

Let's see, take a look at all the charters that had to pay for new buildings because DCPS wouldn't turn over buildings to them.

Those are the schools with high aftercares.

Now look at the schools that had to do renovations (and the per pupil allotment was not allocated equitably).

Those are the schools with high aftercares.

Its not a secret what schools like MV and others are trying to do, pay for things DC doesn't give fair funding for.

[Anonymous]

Our numbers:

- daycare (1650) -198000 per year
- camp 450 x 9 - 4050 per summer
- aftercare (I think it's 450 at Maury but it might be a smidge less) - 4500 per school year

So we're saving around $10,000. We do vacations etc when school is closed for vacations and professional development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see, take a look at all the charters that had to pay for new buildings because DCPS wouldn't turn over buildings to them.

Those are the schools with high aftercares.

Now look at the schools that had to do renovations (and the per pupil allotment was not allocated equitably).

Those are the schools with high aftercares.

Its not a secret what schools like MV and others are trying to do, pay for things DC doesn't give fair funding for.

Not true. ITS, Lee, Shining Stars, Stokes, LAMB, Cap City, have decently priced aftercare. Most that I know of comp FARM students. If they can do it, so can MV.