Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

[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.

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.

Creating a Janney model at Lafayette would probably take a year of planning. Achievable, yes, but for 300 next year, no way. Lafayette parents that want to see this should become a part of the ASAT group to help create this model for the future. There's no reason CLS has to become the long term solution (in fact, if they fail next year the school will be in the same place as it is now.) Long term a Janney like model is probably better for Lafayette, outsider providers and employees can change every year, this is the time for the Lafayette community to step up - LAP could have been this with the right leadership in place.

[Anonymous]

Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

I agree. Janney's model may work well, but a lot of it has to do with the huge availability of AU students-- don't underestimate this. Kids may have different counselors every day of the week. Because it takes a lot of the HR pressure off-- and that is one of the biggest issues with providing services like aftercare.

Anyhow, it's a unique and complex model. All other schools do what Lafayette is proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

At the very least, there would essentially be an in-house provider which benefits the school, just like LAP was. Aftercare is now going to be outsourced (which itself isn't problematic) but CLS has no vested interest in the school - just like when FLEX was brought in over the HSA volunteer. FLEX may be ok but lost is the personal attention and understanding of the school and the school community, FLEX needs to meet its business goals. As a PP said upthread now the school is basically a customer. Janney's program is embedded in the school, the employees may change some year to year but the program will be there. CLS may very well thrive or fall flat in its face next year.

[Anonymous]

If LAP was really trying to help the community, it would agree to help work with CLS in the same way it said it would work with Champions and help the changeover run as smoothly as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

At the very least, there would essentially be an in-house provider which benefits the school, just like LAP was. Aftercare is now going to be outsourced (which itself isn't problematic) but CLS has no vested interest in the school - just like when FLEX was brought in over the HSA volunteer. FLEX may be ok but lost is the personal attention and understanding of the school and the school community, FLEX needs to meet its business goals. As a PP said upthread now the school is basically a customer. Janney's program is embedded in the school, the employees may change some year to year but the program will be there. CLS may very well thrive or fall flat in its face next year.

One reason CLS was chosen over Champions was that the CLS organization is owned by a woman who lives near by and it's a locally owned and operated business. Champions (the LAP proposed vendor) is run by Kindercare-- the large national company.

Let's be clear about LEP- it cost the HSA $35,000 per year to run. FLEX is $0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

I agree. Janney's model may work well, but a lot of it has to do with the huge availability of AU students-- don't underestimate this. Kids may have different counselors every day of the week. Because it takes a lot of the HR pressure off-- and that is one of the biggest issues with providing services like aftercare.

Anyhow, it's a unique and complex model. All other schools do what Lafayette is proposing.

Regarding the AU students -- Janney has successfully tapped the a talent pool that is available to them. One of the elementary schools in NOVA relies heavily on retirees to provide homework support as part of the after school program because they have a large retired populated in the neighborhood. Plus it facilitates more interaction between the seniors & juniors in the neighborhood. This seems like something that Lafayette could pursue and frankly something that the Chevy Chase Association might lend support to. My guess retirees in Chevy Chase have a breadth of skills they could offer to our young students beyond just school-day homework support if they were organized and allowed to brainstorm how they might want to contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

At the very least, there would essentially be an in-house provider which benefits the school, just like LAP was. Aftercare is now going to be outsourced (which itself isn't problematic) but CLS has no vested interest in the school - just like when FLEX was brought in over the HSA volunteer. FLEX may be ok but lost is the personal attention and understanding of the school and the school community, FLEX needs to meet its business goals. As a PP said upthread now the school is basically a customer. Janney's program is embedded in the school, the employees may change some year to year but the program will be there. CLS may very well thrive or fall flat in its face next year.

One reason CLS was chosen over Champions was that the CLS organization is owned by a woman who lives near by and it's a locally owned and operated business. Champions (the LAP proposed vendor) is run by Kindercare-- the large national company.

Let's be clear about LEP- it cost the HSA $35,000 per year to run. FLEX is $0.

I'd like to outline a few benefits of working with a large, national company:

They would have pursued licensure with OSSE. This is a time-consuming process which creates a lot of burden for a small operation BUT licensure allows low-income families to receive subsides to come to aftercare. Even if that means only a few families were eligible that seems great. Plus, as a large national company, that ask doesn't need to come through a parent-board -- it would go directly to a coordinator back at corporate. Those families don't need to worry that their economic status is being discussed by a bunch of gossipy moms.

It also would have put in place more formal agreements with the school about what spaces in the school they would have been allowed to operate in. Note that this DC Urban Moms thread started because there has been no end to space discussions this year.

Champions offered the staff a comprehensive benefits package. True this package is dependent on the number of hours worked so not everyone may have qualified, but LAP does administer benefits today and wanted to ensure there was continuity there. Also, let's face it -- how many Friday's was DCPS in session this past fall? On those days the staff would be logging hours with the after care provider.

Isn't Lafayette Elementary part of a school system that has had it's ups and downs as large school system, yet Lafayette has always retained a strong reputation due to countless hours of parent and community support. Wouldn't having an organized group of parents supporting a large, corporate afterschool program be able to bring the same amount of personalization and success to after school programming as has been enjoyed by the school day programming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If LAP was really trying to help the community, it would agree to help work with CLS in the same way it said it would work with Champions and help the changeover run as smoothly as possible.

Have you ever watched the Lorax with your kids?

The Lorax comes to visit the Once-ler to ask that the Once-ler please stop cutting down the trees. The Once-ler is determined, nothing will stop him, but then, the last Truffula tree falls. The Lorax floats up into the sky leaving behind the headstone, "Unless".

“It's not about what it is, it's about what it can become.”
? Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

[Anonymous]

In such a wealthy area it's hard to understand the outcry on the aftercare price increase. Lafayette is over 85% in bounds and the homes in boundary have an average value of 975K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In such a wealthy area it's hard to understand the outcry on the aftercare price increase. Lafayette is over 85% in bounds and the homes in boundary have an average value of 975K.

Price is an easy way to describe an angst that is much deeper. As a poster above commented, the process that drove this change was not transparent to the community. As a result, the community does not feel that if they had all been given a chance to vote that the outcome would necessarily be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

I agree. Janney's model may work well, but a lot of it has to do with the huge availability of AU students-- don't underestimate this. Kids may have different counselors every day of the week. Because it takes a lot of the HR pressure off-- and that is one of the biggest issues with providing services like aftercare.

Anyhow, it's a unique and complex model. All other schools do what Lafayette is proposing.

My kids at Janney have the same counselors every day. In fact, it's pretty much the same staff every day. Yes there is some turnover Year to year at the counselor level, but that's to be expected when it's a $13-$15/hr job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

At the very least, there would essentially be an in-house provider which benefits the school, just like LAP was. Aftercare is now going to be outsourced (which itself isn't problematic) but CLS has no vested interest in the school - just like when FLEX was brought in over the HSA volunteer. FLEX may be ok but lost is the personal attention and understanding of the school and the school community, FLEX needs to meet its business goals. As a PP said upthread now the school is basically a customer. Janney's program is embedded in the school, the employees may change some year to year but the program will be there. CLS may very well thrive or fall flat in its face next year.

One reason CLS was chosen over Champions was that the CLS organization is owned by a woman who lives near by and it's a locally owned and operated business. Champions (the LAP proposed vendor) is run by Kindercare-- the large national company.

Let's be clear about LEP- it cost the HSA $35,000 per year to run. FLEX is $0.

I'd like to outline a few benefits of working with a large, national company:

They would have pursued licensure with OSSE. This is a time-consuming process which creates a lot of burden for a small operation BUT licensure allows low-income families to receive subsides to come to aftercare. Even if that means only a few families were eligible that seems great. Plus, as a large national company, that ask doesn't need to come through a parent-board -- it would go directly to a coordinator back at corporate. Those families don't need to worry that their economic status is being discussed by a bunch of gossipy moms.

It also would have put in place more formal agreements with the school about what spaces in the school they would have been allowed to operate in. Note that this DC Urban Moms thread started because there has been no end to space discussions this year.

Champions offered the staff a comprehensive benefits package. True this package is dependent on the number of hours worked so not everyone may have qualified, but LAP does administer benefits today and wanted to ensure there was continuity there. Also, let's face it -- how many Friday's was DCPS in session this past fall? On those days the staff would be logging hours with the after care provider.

Isn't Lafayette Elementary part of a school system that has had it's ups and downs as large school system, yet Lafayette has always retained a strong reputation due to countless hours of parent and community support. Wouldn't having an organized group of parents supporting a large, corporate afterschool program be able to bring the same amount of personalization and success to after school programming as has been enjoyed by the school day programming?

There has never been one instance where family economic situations were discussed outside of LAP Board meetings. this never happened and shame on you for implying that it has happened at LAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

I agree. Janney's model may work well, but a lot of it has to do with the huge availability of AU students-- don't underestimate this. Kids may have different counselors every day of the week. Because it takes a lot of the HR pressure off-- and that is one of the biggest issues with providing services like aftercare.

Anyhow, it's a unique and complex model. All other schools do what Lafayette is proposing.

My kids at Janney have the same counselors every day. In fact, it's pretty much the same staff every day. Yes there is some turnover Year to year at the counselor level, but that's to be expected when it's a $13-$15/hr job.

Which is another reason the ASAT picked CLS-- they will pay the counselors, many of whom are aides at Lafayette during the day, $17-$20 an hour. Going with the other company would have meant asking those aids to potentially take a pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a Janney-request model be better for Lafayette specifically? I don't get it.

It seems like an alphabet soup of confusion.

I agree. Janney's model may work well, but a lot of it has to do with the huge availability of AU students-- don't underestimate this. Kids may have different counselors every day of the week. Because it takes a lot of the HR pressure off-- and that is one of the biggest issues with providing services like aftercare.

Anyhow, it's a unique and complex model. All other schools do what Lafayette is proposing.

My kids at Janney have the same counselors every day. In fact, it's pretty much the same staff every day. Yes there is some turnover Year to year at the counselor level, but that's to be expected when it's a $13-$15/hr job.

Which is another reason the ASAT picked CLS-- they will pay the counselors, many of whom are aides at Lafayette during the day, $17-$20 an hour. Going with the other company would have meant asking those aids to potentially take a pay cut.

Not necessarily, staff salary information was never mentioned as a scoring criteria that the ASAT would use. If it had been known the ASAT would be having those discussions it would have been good for the ASAT to receive more information about what is happening today vs what might happen next year.