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?