Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

That's BS. They were told they could have anything but the gym, which is used for other stuff. They wanted their own dedicated space -- they didn't want to have to share.

Should we ask the LAP Board to provide meeting minutes? I bet they could.

To what end? It won't change anything, registration has already started for the new provider. The ship has sailed.

Maybe. If you read these forums regularly it does not appear that it is unprecedented for a provider who cannot fulfill their requirements to pull-out at the last minute.

I'm more interested in seeing minutes from the ASAT meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why did they say they couldn't expand? There is definitely more to this then you are letting on.

Who is at fault for killing off this community institution? The LAP ED, the LAP board, the Principal or DCPS?

It's not that suspicious. They were asked to get to 300 students-- and they said they couldn't do it. They are a parent-run group who aren't in a position to run a business of that size. Their executive director was better at the programming than at the business end of things and she wouldn't or couldn't do it. They endorsed another outside vendor in the end and said they would disband. On the recommendation of an after school parents committee, the principal selected the new vendor.

The meeting minutes from the first ASAT meeting were published to the community. I found this portion to be suspicious:

-Reviewed request for proposals and subsequent proposals:
-Proposals provided for LAP, Capital Language Services, and SpringBoard.
-LAP commented that they did not know their proposal was competing. ASAT and Principal offered LAP additional time to amend their proposal if they desired.

At what point in this process was LAP notified that their proposal was competing? How is a proposal solicited if there is no known competition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Is it true in the Janney+ model that they have full use of the entire school after 3:15?

There was talk at some point in time that the teacher's union was going to force teachers to stop working at 3:30. Did that happen?

How many Lafayette teacher's are using their classrooms after school now?

Was it communicated to the Lafayette teachers that there would be a large afterschool program in the school next year?

Were the teachers offered a channel to voice concerns if things get used or broken in the their classrooms? While Janney does it this way, Lafayette does not today. I'm curious how this change was/is going to be managed to ensure the least amount of disruption between the day time program and the after school program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, there are more factors at play here.
1) the gym is not yet operational- meaning LAP can't use it at the moment, causing a space crunch
2) classrooms are being used by LEP, so LAP has limited space in those as well
3) LAP's enrollment was increased from last year because it thought it would have the gym -- so it's got a bigger enrollment and less places to put people in general.

Everyone needs to hang on a few more months to see if stuff gets ironed out. If it doesn't, complain away.

Why on earth is LEP's space settled and LAP's is not?

Because LAP was supposed to have used the gym...

Were they supposed to use the gym?
http://dgs.dc.gov/node/1041422

Didn't the space that was planned for LAP shrink during the construction process? Slides 8 & 9 showed a shared space for LAP and Nutrition classes, but the space in slide 9 was never built. What about the space in slide 13? That was never built either. Isn't that space like the dungeon of Lafayette now?

Concerns about these changes we voiced and captured in this response from DGS (Question 9)
https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/LAFAYETTE%20RESPONSES_0.pdf

What is planned for that dungeon down in the basement of Lafayette? Wouldn't it be amazing if our community could come together and discuss a capital campaign to provide more for our children? Isn't that what all of us want--for our children to have the best possible experience we as parents can provide for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Is it true in the Janney+ model that they have full use of the entire school after 3:15?

There was talk at some point in time that the teacher's union was going to force teachers to stop working at 3:30. Did that happen?

How many Lafayette teacher's are using their classrooms after school now?

Was it communicated to the Lafayette teachers that there would be a large afterschool program in the school next year?

Were the teachers offered a channel to voice concerns if things get used or broken in the their classrooms? While Janney does it this way, Lafayette does not today. I'm curious how this change was/is going to be managed to ensure the least amount of disruption between the day time program and the after school program.

Janney+ has access to gym, cafeteria, atrium, various classrooms and outdoor playgrounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Couldn't replicate it or weren't given adequate time to plan? If the ASAT was structured like a source selection process it would be great to have visibility into what requirements the vendors were presented with. Again, it seems strange that the notes sent around to the school about the 4/6/17 ASAT meeting indicate that LAP didn't know there was a competition. Was the request for proposals publicly announced anywhere? Would the Janney+ model have even been compatible with whatever requirements were defined in the request for proposal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Couldn't replicate it or weren't given adequate time to plan? If the ASAT was structured like a source selection process it would be great to have visibility into what requirements the vendors were presented with. Again, it seems strange that the notes sent around to the school about the 4/6/17 ASAT meeting indicate that LAP didn't know there was a competition. Was the request for proposals publicly announced anywhere? Would the Janney+ model have even been compatible with whatever requirements were defined in the request for proposal?

I'd also like to see whatever rubric was developed that shows how each proposal measured up against the requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Couldn't replicate it or weren't given adequate time to plan? If the ASAT was structured like a source selection process it would be great to have visibility into what requirements the vendors were presented with. Again, it seems strange that the notes sent around to the school about the 4/6/17 ASAT meeting indicate that LAP didn't know there was a competition. Was the request for proposals publicly announced anywhere? Would the Janney+ model have even been compatible with whatever requirements were defined in the request for proposal?

I'd also like to see whatever rubric was developed that shows how each proposal measured up against the requirements.

Me too. The ASAT meeting minutes from 4/6/17 state:

-ASAT delineated criteria for reviewing the proposals (in order of priority):
-Capacity and Program Focus
-Cost
-Check-in/Check-out procedures, Staffing, and Enrichment
-Service for non-school days

but the note that the Principal sent out on May 3rd says, "The ASAT scored each proposal and program according to an established set of priorities (capacity, safety, cost curriculum/activties, ect), and thoroughly discussed the pros/cons/best fit opportunitites for our kids and our community."

Does that mean at some point in the process that safety became a more important scoring criteria than project cost? How was that decision made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very pleased that the school will better be able to meet demand for aftercare with the new provider, and... also hope the LAP Board re-writes its bylaws so it can still continue to serve the school. Rumor has it that they have some stash of money and they could use it to help offset the families who do have financial need (yes, even Lafayette has a few families who may qualify), give bonuses or specialized training to staff, bring ins special programs...

LAP is stashing money or the HSA is stashing money? Aren't they both non-profit organizations with accountability?

There is no relationship between LAP and HSA.

What is the HSA's relationship with CLS? Isn't CLS offering a discount to families that also sign up for FLEX? Isn't FLEX the provider that the HSA contracted with this year to provide LEP? Wasn't LEP historically run by a parent-volunteer? Does anyone know what happened to that parent volunteer this year? There seems to be a pattern here.

There's no relationship between CLS and the HSA.

FLEX works with the HSA to sort out afterschool programming for free, yes. In the past the HSA had a volunteer do it, but had to pay for Active to administer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Couldn't replicate it or weren't given adequate time to plan? If the ASAT was structured like a source selection process it would be great to have visibility into what requirements the vendors were presented with. Again, it seems strange that the notes sent around to the school about the 4/6/17 ASAT meeting indicate that LAP didn't know there was a competition. Was the request for proposals publicly announced anywhere? Would the Janney+ model have even been compatible with whatever requirements were defined in the request for proposal?

I'd also like to see whatever rubric was developed that shows how each proposal measured up against the requirements.

Me too. The ASAT meeting minutes from 4/6/17 state:

-ASAT delineated criteria for reviewing the proposals (in order of priority):
-Capacity and Program Focus
-Cost
-Check-in/Check-out procedures, Staffing, and Enrichment
-Service for non-school days

but the note that the Principal sent out on May 3rd says, "The ASAT scored each proposal and program according to an established set of priorities (capacity, safety, cost curriculum/activties, ect), and thoroughly discussed the pros/cons/best fit opportunitites for our kids and our community."

Does that mean at some point in the process that safety became a more important scoring criteria than project cost? How was that decision made?

NP here, but seems like you can easily ASK THEM instead of an anonymous chat board...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Couldn't replicate it or weren't given adequate time to plan? If the ASAT was structured like a source selection process it would be great to have visibility into what requirements the vendors were presented with. Again, it seems strange that the notes sent around to the school about the 4/6/17 ASAT meeting indicate that LAP didn't know there was a competition. Was the request for proposals publicly announced anywhere? Would the Janney+ model have even been compatible with whatever requirements were defined in the request for proposal?

I'd also like to see whatever rubric was developed that shows how each proposal measured up against the requirements.

Me too. The ASAT meeting minutes from 4/6/17 state:

-ASAT delineated criteria for reviewing the proposals (in order of priority):
-Capacity and Program Focus
-Cost
-Check-in/Check-out procedures, Staffing, and Enrichment
-Service for non-school days

but the note that the Principal sent out on May 3rd says, "The ASAT scored each proposal and program according to an established set of priorities (capacity, safety, cost curriculum/activties, ect), and thoroughly discussed the pros/cons/best fit opportunitites for our kids and our community."

Does that mean at some point in the process that safety became a more important scoring criteria than project cost? How was that decision made?

NP here, but seems like you can easily ASK THEM instead of an anonymous chat board...

Yes, go through the Tuesday bulletins and messages from the principal and find an ASAT member and ask them, it's not a secret and really no conspiracy. A badly managed and timed process, probably, but most of the information you are looking for is available or could be made available if you asked the right person. If you are a Lafayette family all of this should be easy for you to obtain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette wasnt much of a worrier over what would happen AFTER, he was more of a "take this horse by the reigns" here and now kind of guy who could apply his practical, tactical brilliance in the moment and was in afraid to step in to even the worst quagmires but wasn't always thinking about what would happen AFTER his bold actions.

Ah true, isn't this what earned him the title of, "The Hero of of the Two Worlds"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is the HSA's relationship with CLS? Isn't CLS offering a discount to families that also sign up for FLEX? Isn't FLEX the provider that the HSA contracted with this year to provide LEP? Wasn't LEP historically run by a parent-volunteer? Does anyone know what happened to that parent volunteer this year? There seems to be a pattern here.

While I am with you on the validity of some of these questions, the discount for signing up with FLEX offered by CLS is minimal at best and frankly necessary.

I keep mentally circling back to the underlying problem being communication/transparency problems. Saying there's no contract (just a use agreement) is a great example. The administration keeps using "political" tricks (partial information, legalistic wording, deflection, "blue ribbon" commissions, hiding things in committee, etc) that way too many of us know (and use) from our outside lives which causes trust problems (because we know these techniques in a different context). I'd hate to be a principal here but a lot of this is avoidable and unnecessary. Trust the parents, be open and honest, and good things will happen. Realize that this district is unique. The danger, unlike other schools, is not from the insider clique but the "outsiders".

LAP messed up but instead of forcing a reform of LAP it was destroyed (which not only lets LAP of the hook it changes the focus to the administration).

[Anonymous]

Can anyone comment on the new aftercare provider group coming in? what has been your experience with the teachers/classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

Janney+ = (LAP + LEP, in the LEP's pre-Flex Model) + a sprinkling of language programs. Totally achievable at Lafayette, but there is a key ingredient that comes with any change as the poster above mentioned. Trust.