After School Programs, Hindering Rather Than Helping
“After School Programs, Hindering Rather Than Helping” K. R. Holmstrom
In March, President Trump’s budget director released a statement about which government funded programs would receive budget cuts. The long list included one that seemed to be a surprise to some people but came as a relief to others. Mick Mulvaney announced that after school and summer programs, run by public schools and funded by the federal government would take a $1.2 billion cut. Mulvaney said, “They’re supposed to be educational programs, right? That’s what they’re supposed to do. They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home, get fed so that they do better at school…there’s no demonstrable evidence they’re doing that.” (Reilly). This announcement was greeted by national approval. The largest amount of support for the budget cuts was from the many single-parent, working class families, which have multiple children in the public education system. Apparently, these families have been trying to convince the government to decrease the funding for some time because the programs seem to be doing more harm to their children than good. Stories and complaints of teachers helping their children with homework, the kids receiving too many nutritional snacks, and better social adjustment, have flooded the internet since Mulvaney’s statement to show just how terrible these programs are. Wanda Reynolds, a single mother of three young children, who works two part-time jobs, said, “Everyday my children come home from that after school program and they tell me how the teachers are helping them with their math homework and what not. I simply cannot believe the audacity of these teachers; they might as well be doing the work for the kids. How are my children going to learn anything if they are getting help? They need to learn some independence and just do it themselves and the grades may or may not be good, end of story.” Reynolds also mentioned that her children have been receiving things like fresh fruit, low-fat milk, and hearty granola bars as snacks that the program provides. She pointed out that her children do not receive much food at home because she is always working; “If my kids are going to each something small like an apple, it needs to be covered in sugar or deep fried so they get the proper caloric intake. So they don’t get fat, I’ll have them walk home by themselves. We live on a busy road with no sidewalks, but its fine.” Many parents agree with Reynolds and her reasons as to why the programs deserve the budget cuts. Although the biggest complaint is that children seem to be adjusting socially with children who are not only in their grade, but those who are younger and older than them as well. Rick Murray, a widower and recently unemployed father of two daughters said that his girls were making friends with kids who were younger than them and helping them with their homework. “If I wanted my kids to play with children who weren’t their age I wouldn’t have sent them to public school. When I was in school, we beat up the younger kids and that’s the way that it should be now” said Murray. Teachers praised his daughters for their compassion and friendly attitudes but Murray was so upset by the way the environment had influenced his children that he removed them from the public school system and decided to go the home school route, keeping him from finding and new and sufficient job. The over-whelming support for the after school program budget cuts has caused Mulvaney to consider taking away even more money. In a press conference, Mulvaney said, “Even more cuts might allow us to take away equipment, like toys, games, school supplies, and first aid kits. Having nothing builds character and that’s exactly what these kids need.”
Reilly, Katie. Time Magazine. “The White House Said After-School programs Don’t Help Kids. Here’s What the research Says”. March 17, 2017. Web. May 31, 2017.
