More than nine in 10 parents in communities of concentrated poverty report that they are satisfied overall with the experience and opportunities provided by their child's after-school program, shouts a new study by the naturally supportive Afterschool Alliance.
Why would they not be? If a parent can enroll a child in a federally funded pre-kindergarten program, have the child receive free breakfasts and free or reduced-price lunches, and then have the child attend an after-school program funded by investments from the national, state and local levels, what's not to like?
Such a child potentially could receive government-assisted school care from the ages of 3 to 18. That, of course, is the goal of left-wing government. The more government support, before and after age 18, the better - the easier to control, the easier to manipulate, the easier to keep under thumb.
That's not to say that some government assistance for children is not necessary. If they're not provided food at school, many children may not get to eat or will get to eat very little.
The problem is the goal of such government programs. The goal should be to reduce the number of children served by such programs by fostering more stable homes, better educated people and a strengthening economy. Instead, the goal - like too many federal government programs - is to widen the limits on children served. Where's the carrot in that approach?
But back to the after-school programs. With two parents in the workplace in more and more homes, after-school programs are necessary where children have no one with whom to stay. Having a program where supportive adults provide homework assistance, physical activity and fun play can offer that bridge between school and the end of the workday for parents.
But the Afterschool Alliance would have the Clinton-era 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which were reauthorized with the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, grow to be offered far more widely.
"Designating investment in after-school programs as a priority at the national, state and local levels will help after-school program providers better meet the needs of children and families in communities of concentrated poverty," says the Afterschool Alliance report, "America After 3PM Special Report: Afterschool in Communities of Concentrated Poverty." "Targeted investments in after-school programs can help programs expand their capacity to serve more children and families in communities of concentrated poverty, provide services at an affordable rate, retain qualified staff, and implement program evaluations to monitor and refine program quality."
If you follow bureaucrat-ese at all, you know "targeted investments" means "raise taxes to pay for." And "implement program evaluation to monitor and refine program quality" is akin to saying "the federal government will decide what is and what isn't appropriate for these programs."
Since the authors of the report understand that local and state governments have precious little to "invest" in these programs, they add, "In particular, funding for flexible federal programs that support after-school and summer learning programs should be increased as they fund infrastructure and partnerships that result in both increased quality of and access to after-school and summer learning programs for students in all grade levels, elementary school through high school."
Obviously, many children would be better off in after-school programs than by themselves at home or going from one relative to another, but it's the insidiousness of such programs. Again, the government's goal should be better home environments and a better economy so fewer children need after-school care, but increased federal funding of after-school programs only leads to more government control.
Prior to the August election, several Hamilton County School Board candidates mentioned the need for community schools, where schools in communities of concentrated poverty offer both after-school programs for students and enrichment programs for parents.
We like the idea of the community school being places of lifetime learning, but we think public-private partnerships are the ideal way to structure these programs. We look forward to seeing robust discussions about this idea brought up by these new members.
In the meantime, since U.S. senators like Lamar Alexander, R.-Tenn., worked diligently to wrest controls away from the federal government in the 2015 reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act, we hope congressional funders will take a wary look at large increases in future federal funding for after-school programs. It's not the programs themselves, necessarily, that are the problems, but the creeping fingers of government wanting more and more control over our lives.