Government Should Stay Out of Afterschool Care.

• Author: OLSEN, DARCY

"Legislators who support [afterschool programs] are making a down payment on a more-expansive government-run school system--one that protects its territory at the expense of the education of millions of youngsters."

THE MOVEMENT to lengthen the school day with afterschool programs has support from Democrats and Republicans. Pres. Clinton enthusiastically endorsed them in his 2000 State of the Union Address, saying, "Let's double our investment in afterschool and summer school programs, which boost achievement and keep people off the streets and out of trouble." The centerpiece of the Administration's proposal is $1,000,000,000 to expand the 21st Century Community Learning Center program, currently funded at $400,000,000.

Republican leaders have also embraced increased spending on afterschool programs. When he was a gubernatorial candidate in Texas, George W. Bush proposed spending $25,000,000 to provide afterschool programs in that state. As the Republican nominee for president, he has called for a greater Federal role in education and support of "Federal youth programs."

The most prominent advocacy group for Federally financed afterschool programs is the Children's Defense Fund. Helen Blank, director of child care and development, and Kim Wade, assistant general counsel, maintain that, "Today, when a majority of parents of school-age children are in the workforce, and when welfare-to-work is a national priority, the need for school-age care has taken on a special urgency."

That is a misconception, though. According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the National Child Care Survey (NCCS), no more than 12% of children aged five through 12 ever care for themselves, and those who do are alone for about one hour per day on average. Data show that a child's age, not the family's income, is the primary determinant of whether a youngster spends time alone. In fact, self-care is more likely when family incomes are relatively high and when mothers are better educated. Accordingly, the assertion that there is an urgent need for taxpayer-subsidized afterschool programs is not convincing.

Other proponents of government-run afterschool programs have revived the old saw that idle hands are the devil's workshop. For example, a Department of Education (DOE) publication warns, "Lacking constructive community activities to engage them after school, children are vulnerable to drug use and gang involvement outside of school hours." Although it is true that most criminal behavior takes place in unsupervised settings, there is much more to criminal behavior than mere lack of supervision. Research shows that simply opening more afterschool programs is extremely unlikely to reduce crime.

Furthermore, in many areas, schools themselves are not safe. Thus, it is not at all certain that afterschool programs will be any safer for participating students. For instance, according to the DOE, in 1997, more than 30% of students in grades nine through 12 were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property, and 33% had their property stolen or deliberately damaged on school property. Sometimes, schools can be incubators of the very maladies they seek to prevent.

Finally, the idea that current social conditions demand a dramatic expansion of afterschool programs is undermined by the fact that many parents and children choose not to participate in them.

Afterschool programs are part of a strategic plan to expand government schools into one-stop shopping centers for social services. The proposal to provide $1,000,000,000 for the 21st Century Community Learning Center program is a good example. Its purpose is to turn government schools into "learning centers" that, in addition to regular education, provide afterschool programs and at least four other services, ranging from parent training and daycare to job training and health programs. In the DOE publication, Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers: Extending Learning in a Safe, Drug-Free Environment Before and After School, Clinton explains his support for learning centers: "Our schools are critical to bringing our communities together. We want them to serve the public not just during school hours but after hours: to function as vital community centers; places for recreation and learning ... gathering places for young people and adults alike." About 1,600 public schools in 471 communities now have 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The Administration has made clear that funding afterschool programs is a down payment on a more-expansive government-run school system.

Rather than fund the expansion of government schools, state legislators should adopt universal tuition tax credits that would give parents full latitude to select their offspring's schools, including independent ones, with or without afterschool programs. Such credits would give parents and children a choice of schools and would introduce sorely needed competition into the government monopoly on education. Finally, Congress should cease funding afterschool programs.

The Federal government currently funds more than 100 grant and loan programs for afterschool care through at least seven departments. However, no figures for how much funding actually goes to afterschool programs exist at this time. That is partly because the money can be used for multiple purposes. For instance, an estimated $20,000,000,000 is spent annually to subsidize child care expenses, but government figures do not differentiate between the proportion that goes to school-age care and that used for younger children.

Furthermore, there is no figure for how much states spend on afterschool care, but it appears that the number with afterschool programs is increasing. In 1999, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that, since 1986, at least 18 states had...