Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

[Anonymous]

People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not what was implied. What was implied is that having conversations about economic status isn't always a comfortable conversation to have. Putting in place controls such that other parents don't have any reason to have access to that information may be a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not what was implied. What was implied is that having conversations about economic status isn't always a comfortable conversation to have. Putting in place controls such that other parents don't have any reason to have access to that information may be a good thing.

It was implied by calling LAP Board members "gossipy moms". BTW dads have been part of the LAP board as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not what was implied. What was implied is that having conversations about economic status isn't always a comfortable conversation to have. Putting in place controls such that other parents don't have any reason to have access to that information may be a good thing.

It was implied by calling LAP Board members "gossipy moms". BTW dads have been part of the LAP board as well.

You are correct that both moms and dads are part of the LAP Board. Happy to acknowledge that was a failed attempt to keep a very serious conversation light. The reality is that LAP has a policy that if families are not able to pay tuition, and attempts to contact the family to make alternate arrangements fail, that family would be transitioned to another aftercare program that is less expensive such as DPR. These are the people that need community support the most. Making it as easy for them to find care without embarrassment is a serious conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

Does anyone know what ages CLS serves at Murch? Is it all of Pre-K through 5? Are their activities diverse enough to satisfy the needs of both the big and little kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not what was implied. What was implied is that having conversations about economic status isn't always a comfortable conversation to have. Putting in place controls such that other parents don't have any reason to have access to that information may be a good thing.

It was implied by calling LAP Board members "gossipy moms". BTW dads have been part of the LAP board as well.

You are correct that both moms and dads are part of the LAP Board. Happy to acknowledge that was a failed attempt to keep a very serious conversation light. The reality is that LAP has a policy that if families are not able to pay tuition, and attempts to contact the family to make alternate arrangements fail, that family would be transitioned to another aftercare program that is less expensive such as DPR. These are the people that need community support the most. Making it as easy for them to find care without embarrassment is a serious conversation.

Well you are insulting members of the Lafayette community, myself included. When I served I took the role seriously and there were never issues or embarrassment related to scholarships. If folks prefer having strangers make those kinds of decisions and be less flexible with giving consideration to certain situations, then have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not what was implied. What was implied is that having conversations about economic status isn't always a comfortable conversation to have. Putting in place controls such that other parents don't have any reason to have access to that information may be a good thing.

It was implied by calling LAP Board members "gossipy moms". BTW dads have been part of the LAP board as well.

You are correct that both moms and dads are part of the LAP Board. Happy to acknowledge that was a failed attempt to keep a very serious conversation light. The reality is that LAP has a policy that if families are not able to pay tuition, and attempts to contact the family to make alternate arrangements fail, that family would be transitioned to another aftercare program that is less expensive such as DPR. These are the people that need community support the most. Making it as easy for them to find care without embarrassment is a serious conversation.

Well you are insulting members of the Lafayette community, myself included. When I served I took the role seriously and there were never issues or embarrassment related to scholarships. If folks prefer having strangers make those kinds of decisions and be less flexible with giving consideration to certain situations, then have at it.

I apologize for insulting you. It was really not my intent at all. I am well aware that everyone who has ever served on the LAP Board takes their job very seriously, is 100% committed to providing what is best for their children and for the Lafayette community. Let's face it, the only people that join that Board are those that want to see improvements. Scholarships can be both need and merit based. You raise a good point that having both brings additional flexibility to any program. It is simply my personal opinion that need-based scholarships may be best handled through a more anonymous route. Then, if a parent board were to administer merit-based scholarships the students who are awarded those scholarships would be celebrated for their success, as opposed to being cast in a light of having additional need.

[sformuzis]

Wish we didn't have such divisiveness in our community. At some point, you have to ask why.

[Anonymous]

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

The original LAP proposal included comments to show how 300 would fit into potential space in the school. In order to achieve growth there are two main ingredients, space + staff. It is regrettable that the meeting to discuss space for School Year 2017-2018 with the Principal never happened and instead the plan was handed off to the ASAT. It's hard to understand how LAP screwed up when LAP was acting in good faith and then it's voice was stifled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

The original LAP proposal included comments to show how 300 would fit into potential space in the school. In order to achieve growth there are two main ingredients, space + staff. It is regrettable that the meeting to discuss space for School Year 2017-2018 with the Principal never happened and instead the plan was handed off to the ASAT. It's hard to understand how LAP screwed up when LAP was acting in good faith and then it's voice was stifled.

The original LAP proposal presented for consideration by the ASAT in April included a modest increase to enrollment under the current business model. LAP then backtracked, and scrambled to find an outside provider they could endorse rather than continue to provides services under the current program. The space issue has been consistently addressed - here, at school, everywhere. LAP will say one thing and the administration will say another. At this point credibility is questionable on both sides. The staffing issue is one that every single organization faces and is hardly a reason LAP should give as a reason why they couldn't meet the needs of the school community. I agree with PP, LAP did screw up - wish at least one of them would come on here and admit they were part of the problem rather than blame the principal for everything.

[sformuzis]

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

My opinion is mine alone and has nothing to do with the LAP board, which has always tried to work constructively with the principal. I share your hope that next year's program will be a success for all involved and am glad that more families will have access. I also hope that the new program will benefit from the current after care staff, as many of them have been caring for Lafayette's kids for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

The original LAP proposal included comments to show how 300 would fit into potential space in the school. In order to achieve growth there are two main ingredients, space + staff. It is regrettable that the meeting to discuss space for School Year 2017-2018 with the Principal never happened and instead the plan was handed off to the ASAT. It's hard to understand how LAP screwed up when LAP was acting in good faith and then it's voice was stifled.

The original LAP proposal presented for consideration by the ASAT in April included a modest increase to enrollment under the current business model. LAP then backtracked, and scrambled to find an outside provider they could endorse rather than continue to provides services under the current program. The space issue has been consistently addressed - here, at school, everywhere. LAP will say one thing and the administration will say another. At this point credibility is questionable on both sides. The staffing issue is one that every single organization faces and is hardly a reason LAP should give as a reason why they couldn't meet the needs of the school community. I agree with PP, LAP did screw up - wish at least one of them would come on here and admit they were part of the problem rather than blame the principal for everything.

The root of the problem here is communication and collaboration.

LAP was not informed that their space request for School Year 2017-2018 would be compared against outside providers. Does anyone know how long ago the proposals from other providers were solicited? Clearly the lines of communication were not open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

The original LAP proposal included comments to show how 300 would fit into potential space in the school. In order to achieve growth there are two main ingredients, space + staff. It is regrettable that the meeting to discuss space for School Year 2017-2018 with the Principal never happened and instead the plan was handed off to the ASAT. It's hard to understand how LAP screwed up when LAP was acting in good faith and then it's voice was stifled.

The original LAP proposal presented for consideration by the ASAT in April included a modest increase to enrollment under the current business model. LAP then backtracked, and scrambled to find an outside provider they could endorse rather than continue to provides services under the current program. The space issue has been consistently addressed - here, at school, everywhere. LAP will say one thing and the administration will say another. At this point credibility is questionable on both sides. The staffing issue is one that every single organization faces and is hardly a reason LAP should give as a reason why they couldn't meet the needs of the school community. I agree with PP, LAP did screw up - wish at least one of them would come on here and admit they were part of the problem rather than blame the principal for everything.

The root of the problem here is communication and collaboration.

LAP was not informed that their space request for School Year 2017-2018 would be compared against outside providers. Does anyone know how long ago the proposals from other providers were solicited? Clearly the lines of communication were not open and this entire situation could have been avoided if there was an established pattern of trust and communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

sformuzis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, it's done. More kids will have access to aftercare and thank god. LAP should help the new provider get up to speed and then refocus its efforts on programming and the other things they said they were interested in.

It's all good!

It's not done. Sure, people will sign up for the new program. The LAP board will no doubt give their time to ensure a smooth transition for the LAP staff and students. What's not done is the parent response to the continued divisive and dishonest actions of this principal. Principal Broquard systematically killed a 40-year old parent-led program with virtually no public input. She pulled together a parent group under false pretenses, did not provide an open process for vendors to compete, did not seek input from the broader community or teachers, and successfully used that small group of parents to serve as her patsies. She's very good at alternative facts, but it's time to start shining the light on what is happening at the school.

Since your husband is a member of LAP, I hardly think you an impartial point of view. LAP screwed up. But the rest of us are looking forward to the opportunity to finally having an aftercare option.

The original LAP proposal included comments to show how 300 would fit into potential space in the school. In order to achieve growth there are two main ingredients, space + staff. It is regrettable that the meeting to discuss space for School Year 2017-2018 with the Principal never happened and instead the plan was handed off to the ASAT. It's hard to understand how LAP screwed up when LAP was acting in good faith and then it's voice was stifled.

The original LAP proposal presented for consideration by the ASAT in April included a modest increase to enrollment under the current business model. LAP then backtracked, and scrambled to find an outside provider they could endorse rather than continue to provides services under the current program. The space issue has been consistently addressed - here, at school, everywhere. LAP will say one thing and the administration will say another. At this point credibility is questionable on both sides. The staffing issue is one that every single organization faces and is hardly a reason LAP should give as a reason why they couldn't meet the needs of the school community. I agree with PP, LAP did screw up - wish at least one of them would come on here and admit they were part of the problem rather than blame the principal for everything.

The root of the problem here is communication and collaboration.

LAP was not informed that their space request for School Year 2017-2018 would be compared against outside providers. Does anyone know how long ago the proposals from other providers were solicited? Clearly the lines of communication were not open.

I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I would say it was when LAP failed to produce a proposal by the original March deadline.