Sun Schools

By Jane Ames

We appreciate the many letters we are receiving from you who want the County to continue to fully fund the Sun School Program. We are looking into the issue and invite thoughts about Sun School programs, as well as ideas about strategically selecting where to make cuts when reductions are required. We struggle with how our community is to endure tough choices when the resources don’t meet the demands.

The City has fully funded its commitment to the Sun School program; County leaders are struggling among themselves whether to fully fund or cut $1.7 million of the program’s funding.

No one has made a case that the Sun School Program is not valuable, nor has anyone dismissed the importance of the extended-day programming that provides positive safe activities and academic support.

The case is being posed that cuts have to be made, and this is one place the County can make reductions. According to this view, the County funds similar services to these populations through other programs, and the $1.7 million reduction will impact administration rather than direct services.

The countering perspective is that the Sun School Program is a nationally lauded program with a proven record of strong outcomes and measurable results for hi-risk and low-income children and families, and that the drastic cut will eliminate direct services for approximately 10,000 students.

Please read the linked articles and let us hear your ideas.

SUN Schools has been recognized nation-wide as a premiere asset-based prevention model targeting at-risk or low-income children and families. A recent independent evaluation of SUN by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (NWREL) showed strong outcomes and measurable results for children and families served by the program.

SUN Schools are an important piece of the youth and school-related programs funded by Multnomah County, but are only one part of a sweeping set of County programs designed to support children and their families.

Multnomah County commissioners Monday faced a sidewalk demonstration and an evening of emotional testimony from backers of Schools Uniting Neighborhoods, a community schools and social service program that has been targeted for a $1.7 million budget cut.

Jane Ames's recent posts | Print this page

Posted Fri, 06/16/2006 - 9:39pm.

[[ Categories: Education | LPSCC ]]

Jane/Sam/whoever is reading

Submitted by Larry on Fri, 06/16/2006 - 9:33pm.

Jane/Sam/whoever is reading this:

In general, I support the SUN programs. However, I have 2 concerns:

1) You wrote: A recent independent evaluation of SUN by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (NWREL) showed strong outcomes and measurable results for children and families served by the program." So what exactly ARE the measurable results? And I wouldn't consider a headcount of the number of people who accessed the programs to be a result (that would be like listing the number of people entering high school as a "result" of Portland School District). So what are these measurable results?

2) Why are we feeding people under this program? Like I said, I support SUN and I like the ideas of activities for the kids during the summer, but I don't understand how it became a meal program. Seems to me that we could extend the program in more locations if we could eliminate that cost, thereby reaching more kids.

Thanks, Larry

» reply

Larry, Responding to your

Submitted by Jane_Ames on Fri, 06/16/2006 - 9:34pm.

Larry,

Responding to your questions:

#1: I have not read the report itself. From the materials I have read the criteria they speak of are quite a bit beyond how many they serve. It is about the improvement in school attendance, completetion of assignments (as in homework), and improvement in their achievement.

How they are able to tie those impacts directly to Sun School participation I do not know; it could be there are many integrated efforts all helping students achieve.

#2: This answer is from my perspective having worked in school programs, after school programs and efforts and such. We feed students because some do not get enough to eat at home, or they are rushed to school so parents can get to work and breakfast gets skipped or isn't adequate to get them through day.

When students are hungry it is hard to concentrate on school. So feeding kids is a very effective tool in helping students succeed in school.

And feeding kids in after school programs provides the after school nourishment that most kids need, and again helps them settle in and study.

I can understand why you might think it isn't a logical link, but I think feeding kids is a very valid and important use of our funds.

Thank you for writing and for asking questions.

Jane

» reply

It makes logistical sense to

Submitted by Andy on Mon, 06/19/2006 - 10:30am.

It makes logistical sense to utilize school buildings for some after school programs. However, this may be redundant or more costly where a Boys & Girls Club or other facility is nearby.
Have you looked at the cost of the SUN "Coordinators" at each site and the ability of the service providers to coordinate the activities themselves - without this layer of "supervision"?

» reply

Jane - thank you for your

Submitted by Larry on Mon, 06/19/2006 - 12:29pm.

Jane - thank you for your reply, I appreciate that you took a moment to address my concerns.

I'd like to add a couple more notes on the 2 subjects we're discussing:

1) It's disheartening that I keep reading about the great "measurable results" that SUN programs achieve, but I've yet to see where those are published or available for review. Please remember that I'm not against the SUN programs, I'm just starting to wonder if the results have really been measured or not.

2) Obviously a kid with a full tummy can learn/focus/achieve more. I don't doubt that a bit. But so can a kid who gets 9 hours of sleep a night. Basic needs for kids are parents' responsibilities, not the duty of gov't agencies or community programs. And when I see signs posted along 122nd that scream FREE LUNCH! at the Parkrose schools all summer long, that rubs me to the wrong way. I'd rather that the money being spent on feeding kids instead be used to expand the programs into more locations. And make parents feed their kids, like they're supposed to. We already have programs to feed people who need help, I don't like the idea that we've added another.

Thanks again for your attention to my inquiries.

Larry

» reply

Summer Food Programs

Submitted by Susan on Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:21am.

Even though "Larry" sent his comments to this site in June 2006, I have only accessed the site for the first time today. I feel I must respond to the comments regarding the Summer Food Program advertised for the Parkrose schools, and Larry's comment that these signs "rub him the wrong way." Unless there were other responses between June and the present that have been removed from the site, I am surprised that no one jumped on this. There's a lack of understanding here that perhaps needs clarification. The Summer Food Programs in the schools are essential to fill the gap left by the school lunch program being closed for three months. Children whose low-income families receive food stamps, and therefore qualify for reduced-fee or no-cost school lunches during the school year are left with no such help during the summer. (And no, families don't get "extra" food stamps during the summer months.)
Parental neglect does exist, unfortunately. But most of us are just doing the best we can, getting help for our kids when they need it, and we're thankful that help exists.

» reply