This article is a Letter to the Editor submitted to the Wisconsin State Journal.
Thanks for the editorial, “What’s going on after school?” Questioning the Madison School Board’s rush to replace private, non-profit after school day care providers with tax-supported Safe Haven programs operated through the Madison School Community Recreation program is a public service.
Last year we had 4,437 low-income children in our elementary schools. As a community, we should support all of them with high quality after school care. However, the district must continue to work with community providers to reach this goal. The scope of the problem is far beyond the district’s capacity.
You were correct in your facts about the proposed change. Some key
points bear repeating.
As you said, “nothing is wrong with existing programs”. Safe Haven programs meet only the state’s child care standard, a minimal standard.
They do not meet the higher standard of city accreditation met by current providers such as the YMCA and After School, Inc. Lacking city accreditation results in lower rates of state reimbursement for low-income children in Safe Haven programs. Less funding is one cause of less-qualified staff in Safe Haven programs.
In terms of academic opportunities, City evaluations of Safe Haven in 2003 criticized MSCR’s program for lack of “activities that encourage children’s independent learning experiences” and recommended additional training for staff on developmentally appropriate choices for children. As the City has told the superintendent, “it is our experience that the orientation of the MSCR programs is not generally toward after school childcare. It is recreation-based”.
“Safe Haven will cost parents and taxpayers more money”. That is beyond dispute. By rushing into this change without consulting parents served
by the current programs, we guarantee that some parents will leave with the displaced programs, depriving MSCR of their fees. We lose the rent paid by the providers that off-sets some of our building and custodial costs. We incur greater staffing, training, transportation, and administrative costs and pass those to the parents and taxpayers.
“Transportation costs are a non-issue”. Also correct. Whether we contract with current providers to transport more low-income childrenhome or pay for transportation to Safe Haven sites, the costs will depend on the number of children added, not on the nature of the provider.
The Board is poised to make this change at Allis and Lincoln-Midvale Schools on August 30. As Superintendent Rainwater told us in June, the money is the next year’s budget, although the Board had no notice of the dollars or this new purpose and has never considered the academic issues, the financial impacts or the effects of our action on our partners in providing after school care—the non-profits and the City of Madison.
The time to contact Board members with your concerns is now. You can reach all Board members at comments@madison.k12.wi.us.
Judy Sekulski is a parent at Midvale-Lincoln School in Madison. In this article she responds to the Madison district administration's recent public statements about Safe Haven programs.
I am writing in response to Lucy Chaffin's column on
July 12, 2004, ("Schools Offer Quality Childcare"),
about the Safe Haven after-school programs run by
MSCR. She states that, "The district doesn't support
separate programs running side-by-side in elementary
schools (as was the case last year at Midvale) because
this results in segregation by income and race."
This implies that the Safe Haven program at Midvale will
integrate the children in one program. This is not accurate.
There will be a K-5 Safe Haven at both Midvale and Lincoln
campuses, with children who attend each campus returning
to their neighborhood campus for Safe Haven care, so that
siblings from grades K-2 and 3-5 can be together, near
their homes. So, this will not integrate the children who
currently attend the K-5 Midvale AFTER SCHOOL
program and the Midvale Safe Haven program.
It was unfair of her to imply that those of us who want
to keep AFTER SCHOOL at Midvale somehow
condone the separation of the kids there by race. In
September 2003, the district created the "side-by-side"
situation at Midvale (where AFTER SCHOOL has
operated for 25 years), by installing a K-2 Safe Haven
there, when there was already a Safe Haven at Lincoln.
AFTER SCHOOL is already a diverse program, with
staff and students of color. If it had access to the
tax dollars to which Safe Haven does, it could expand its
existing programs to serve more low income children.
It is by no means elitist. It has been a good partner
with our schools for over 25 years, providing high
quality care in an environment of respect, equality,
and fair play.
Jane Sekulski, a Midvale-Lincoln parent
On July 12, the Madison Board of Education will review proposals from Superintendent Rainwater that may mean the end of a long and successful collaboration between the district, the City of Madison and private child care providers to ensure quality after-school child care for elementary students. Apparently the superintendent plans to argue that MMSD can do a better job and can afford to expand into the after-school care business.
For nearly two decades, the district and the City have worked in partnership to provide high quality after-school child care for MMSD elementary students. MMSD has provided low-cost space in schools and the City has provided quality assurance, evaluating programs and training staff.
Because the City requires private providers to be city-accredited, the City holds the private programs to high standards for programs and staff. The one exception to that rule is the Safe Haven program operated by MMSD through the Madison School-Community Recreation program. Safe Haven monitors its own programs under standards that fall short of the accreditation standards.
Late this spring when parents of students enrolled at YMCA and After School Inc. programs at Allis and Midvale-Lincoln schools hoped to place their children in the same programs for fall 2004, the parents learned that Safe Haven will replace those providers. For private paying parents, fees will increase.
Parents have questioned this change for good reasons. First, they value the current providers and the quality of programs. Second, they know that Safe Haven will not be held to the same program and staffing standards. Third, they wonder why they must pay more for the MSCR program, a program paid for by taxes.
The private providers express legitimate concerns also. They continue to value the partnership with MMSD. They are very willing to work with the district to improve transportation or other services if necessary. At the same time, they are small organizations that cannot expand and contract in size every time that MMSD comes up with new funding for Safe Haven. They wonder whether MMSD plans to displace all private providers of after-school child care.
As a Board member, I question this direction. In a time of budget constraints, we must nurture community partnerships. Displacing proven programs goes in the opposite direction. At all times, we must seek the highest quality care for the children of our community. Substituting MMSD programs for accredited programs fails that standard.
Finally, the only way that MMSD can afford to increase Safe Haven programs is to continue to increase that part of residential property taxes that is not subject to revenue limits—the so-called “community services” levy. Unless we believe that Safe Haven programs are more important than the school programs and teaching positions that we have cut, we should not increase our community service costs. The same taxpayers fund both. Voters have no choice when we increase community service spending. However, they can vote no on future referendums to pay operating costs for the schools.
To comment, contact me at robarts@execpc.com or 238-2273 or all Board members at comments@madison.k12.wi.us or 663-1659.
This information appeared as a Guest Editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal in June, 2004.