Latchkey Children
The title of the editorial that I am writing about is Home Alone. This article is about expanding after-school programs for children. Within the article, the writer gives several different facts and reasons as to why there should be more after-school programs for children. Also, the writer mentions that President Obama had promised to increase financing for after-school programs while he was campaigning for the presidency. Once he became president, though, he did not fulfill that promise and still has not. Because of this, the writer is trying to convince President Obama, Congress, and the government in general to increase the financing for the after-school programs because according to the writer, "after-school slots continues to lag far behind parents' demand," even though, 'After-school programs are a cost-effective way to boost student achievement, reduce juvenile crime and help overstressed working parents."
There are several different things that the writer writes about that makes the argument more concrete. He/she gives different facts to support the argument being made. For instance, the writer mentions that, "children left alone and unsupervised at the end of the regular school day: 15.1 million - more than a quarter of America's schoolchildren and an 800,000 increase from 2004. That number includes 4 percent of elementary school students and 30 percent of middle school students who are on their own until their parents return home." I believe this fact that the writer presents supports the argument extremely well because this is the result from not having as many after-school programs as needed. Not only that, but most people would agree that elementary school students and middle school students should not be left alone at home, unsupervised. Part of the reason why these young students are left at home unsupervised is because the government has not funded communities throughout the United States well enough to start-up some type of after-school program for their children. We know that the government doesn't fund communities well enough because the writer also mentions that, "Parents of 18.5 million students say they would enroll their children in an after-school program if one were available." This fact indicates that the funding for these programs is limited. One would think that if 18.5 million parents, plus the millions of other parents whose children are already enrolled in after-school programs, were interested in these types of programs that the government would put more money toward them, but apparently that isn't true.
Even though there is a lack of funding going to communities for after-school programs, the writer mentions an upside to the matter that is reported by a group known as the Afterschool Alliance. The writer said, "It reports a big increase in the number of schoolchildren participating in after-school programs: 8.4 million youngsters compared with 6.5 million in 2004." This is an improvement, however, there are still 15.1 million students that are left at home alone, unsupervised after school. So still the government has not done enough. The reason why is unclear because the writer also says that, "Parents sat they are generally satisfied with the programs their children attend." Once again, the writer mentions another great reason as to why the government needs to increase the financing for after-school programs. If parents are satisfied with these programs, then it is only logical for the government to do so.
Along with the increase of students attending after-school programs and parent satisfaction of the programs, the writer also says what they have to offer. "They offer help with schoolwork, sports activities and other enrichment known to translate into improved school attendance and higher graduation rates and lower rates of teenage pregnancy, drinking, delinquency and drug use," said the writer. So now, along with parent satisfaction of after-school programs and more parents wanting these programs, comes a list of things that these programs help to achieve or help to prevent for America's children. One of these is lowering the rates of teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy can be tied directly to a national debate known as abortion. Usually abortions take place because a teenager accidentally becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby. This means that the government could improve these two situations just by increasing financing to communities so that they can set up after-school programs for their students. Not only that, but helping the young students stay away from drugs and alcohol so that they can go to school and graduate which helps the No Child Left Behind Act, which after-school programs are financed under. Hence, after-school programs need increased financing so that the No Child Left Behind Act will prevail.
Overall, the argument affects both the children and the parents. All of the facts and reasons presented by the writer support the fact that children and parents will gain something from after-school programs. For children, they gain not only safety, but a chance to stay drug and alcohol free and begin on a good path that leads them to at least a high school graduation. The parents would gain the knowledge of knowing that their kids were safe until they get off work and that their children will begin on a better path by staying away from all of the negative things. So other than keeping the young children safe, these after-school programs can shape the futures of America's young, which is very important.
All in all, I believe the writer gave a very good argument concerning after-school programs. I think that the different facts and reasons that were given to support the argument were very effective. However, there is one thing that I would include that I think would make the argument even stronger. I would include that the children who do not attend after-school programs and instead go home alone, would run a very high risk of being abducted. The idea of children being abducted, I think, would open the eyes of President Obama and the government just enough to where they would increase the financiong for after-school programs. Other than that, I thought the writer's argument was effective.
