Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

[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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

[Anonymous]

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

The better question regarding divisiveness is when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LAP requested a one week extension from the agreed upon date.

Also, to add additional clarification. A Building Use Agreement needs to be filed with DGS 20 days prior to occupancy. If the expectation that the conversation was going to focus on securing appropriate space in the school it was not clear why the April 1st deadline was so urgent. That only became clear when after the plan was submitted.

Urgent? Because parents are furious that the school doesn't provide aftercare but to a handful of its students! Because parents are deciding on whether to attend the school based on this issue! How dare LAP pussy-foot around when there is such a need! How can they really think they are such representatives of the community and not deal with this issue? If I were the principal, I would want the proposal as early as possible so that I could go get other bidders ASAP if they couldn't do it. Which it sounds like is exactly what she did.

180 students = handful... good one. Let's not forget LAP nearly doubled in size this past year... only to be asked to grow to 300 (120 more than this year). Where is the (transparent) data to support that is the actual number. Given the price increase proposed for next year and current climate at Lafayette, I've heard more families looking at other alternatives than those who are excited for the proposed program for next year. Dr. B's technique (for anyone who is even mildly observant) is to distract and divide... and it is working. Instead of building bridges, collaboration and consensus among the stakeholders, the Lafayette community is being poisoned by misinformation, divisiveness and a lack of transparency.

Anyone with a kid in the program know if those numbers are correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LAP requested a one week extension from the agreed upon date.

Also, to add additional clarification. A Building Use Agreement needs to be filed with DGS 20 days prior to occupancy. If the expectation that the conversation was going to focus on securing appropriate space in the school it was not clear why the April 1st deadline was so urgent. That only became clear when after the plan was submitted.

Urgent? Because parents are furious that the school doesn't provide aftercare but to a handful of its students! Because parents are deciding on whether to attend the school based on this issue! How dare LAP pussy-foot around when there is such a need! How can they really think they are such representatives of the community and not deal with this issue? If I were the principal, I would want the proposal as early as possible so that I could go get other bidders ASAP if they couldn't do it. Which it sounds like is exactly what she did.

180 students = handful... good one. Let's not forget LAP nearly doubled in size this past year... only to be asked to grow to 300 (120 more than this year). Where is the (transparent) data to support that is the actual number. Given the price increase proposed for next year and current climate at Lafayette, I've heard more families looking at other alternatives than those who are excited for the proposed program for next year. Dr. B's technique (for anyone who is even mildly observant) is to distract and divide... and it is working. Instead of building bridges, collaboration and consensus among the stakeholders, the Lafayette community is being poisoned by misinformation, divisiveness and a lack of transparency.

Anyone with a kid in the program know if those numbers are correct?

Sounds about right. LAP currently serves 180/768 students so about 25% of the student enrollment. Assuming they served 100 last year, when enrollment was 700 they were serving 14% of students. Admittedly, last year the school was operating in trailers so now sure it's a fair year to use as a data point. But it would be interesting to see how LAP had (or had not) grown over the 10 years prior to the 15-16 school year as school enrollment increased. I guess it depends on personal opinion whether 25% of the population is a handful.

I think the school has always been divided, those who have felt marginalized by a former culture that was influenced by cliquey parent groups are probably more likely to support the new culture. I applaud her determined effort to bring Lafayette out of the gross "old boys network."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

[Anonymous]

To the Murch parent who wrote in above: What do you mean that CLS has "no board"? No transparency? Won't they ultimately need to meet the demands of their customers (parents)? They are contracting with parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the Murch parent who wrote in above: What do you mean that CLS has "no board"? No transparency? Won't they ultimately need to meet the demands of their customers (parents)? They are contracting with parents.

It's a private corporation, but a small one based in DC. Like Springboard, or any summer day camp you might send your kids to which operates on city property (e.g. HoopEd, Home Run Baseball).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

Volunteer parents who are providing a fee-based service ARE vendors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the Murch parent who wrote in above: What do you mean that CLS has "no board"? No transparency? Won't they ultimately need to meet the demands of their customers (parents)? They are contracting with parents.

Like any business they have to meet the demands of their customers. But the relationship to those customers is 1:1 -- not as a block. Each parent will sign a contract to enroll Larlo and Larla in CLS for X dollars per week. If Larlo's parents are unhappy but Larla's parents are thrilled, Larlo's parents can pull him out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

Oh my god. YES, they are a vendor-- they are providing a service that parents pay for. This isn't some fuzzy community play group-- aftercare is a desperately needed service. If the LAP board didn't understand this, if they didn't get that they are indeed a vendor, then shame on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

Volunteer parents who are providing a fee-based service ARE vendors.

So parents who volunteer to serve on a non-profit aftercare program, set up only to benefit the families of Lafayette, and who's voting members and shareholders are all parents who have children enrolled in the program, and who's only fees collected go to pay for the staff on site who care for your children (and their own) are somehow equal to for profit service providers? When you volunteer to serve on say the Vestry of your church or similar organization, are you somehow no longer a stakeholder in the congregation? Should your own accountability to the congregation, your desire to see the organization serve the congregation and community successfully beyond your one or two year term, and who's "fees" collected go to serve the families who engage in the organization and its mission... sounds more like a partnership... ones that have historically, including here at Lafayette, been built on trust and collaboration. That died the moment the power hungry folks in the front office and their small group of surrogates decided they have an axe to grind. Tell me, how has the track record of these administration takeovers gone recently? How about LEP? Didn't a parent volunteer used to help with that? How is it going now? What about drop off line? How is that going now? Who do you think has the best information regarding logistics and actual data on how to run an after are program at Lafayette? Do you think they were engaged by the administration to find a better, achievable, responsible and sustainable way to serve the parent community? Or were they beaten up, misled, isolated from having transparent dialog with the community, and otherwise ostracized. And who do you think is at the center of it? Funny that the only way to provide feedback or discuss this latest topic is behind closed doors in one-on-one meetings. Public administration policy fail 101. Why might someone not want parents to discuss the issues in a public forum? Transparency maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

Volunteer parents who are providing a fee-based service ARE vendors.

So parents who volunteer to serve on a non-profit aftercare program, set up only to benefit the families of Lafayette, and who's voting members and shareholders are all parents who have children enrolled in the program, and who's only fees collected go to pay for the staff on site who care for your children (and their own) are somehow equal to for profit service providers? When you volunteer to serve on say the Vestry of your church or similar organization, are you somehow no longer a stakeholder in the congregation? Should your own accountability to the congregation, your desire to see the organization serve the congregation and community successfully beyond your one or two year term, and who's "fees" collected go to serve the families who engage in the organization and its mission... sounds more like a partnership... ones that have historically, including here at Lafayette, been built on trust and collaboration. That died the moment the power hungry folks in the front office and their small group of surrogates decided they have an axe to grind. Tell me, how has the track record of these administration takeovers gone recently? How about LEP? Didn't a parent volunteer used to help with that? How is it going now? What about drop off line? How is that going now? Who do you think has the best information regarding logistics and actual data on how to run an after are program at Lafayette? Do you think they were engaged by the administration to find a better, achievable, responsible and sustainable way to serve the parent community? Or were they beaten up, misled, isolated from having transparent dialog with the community, and otherwise ostracized. And who do you think is at the center of it? Funny that the only way to provide feedback or discuss this latest topic is behind closed doors in one-on-one meetings. Public administration policy fail 101. Why might someone not want parents to discuss the issues in a public forum? Transparency maybe?

1. This isn’t church—it’s a child care service provided to parents for a fee. The executive director is paid, the staff are paid. They only people who aren’t paid are the board. This is a service paid for by people who use it.
2. LEP cost parents 30K a year. Flex is free. Do you really think we should be paying 30K for something we can get for free?
3. If LAP has all that info, and they are simply here to help the community, then they can certainly help CLS transition with the same good will they were willing to offer the vendor they endorsed.
4. Agree that the principal’s communication is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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!

Interesting concept. Has LAP been asked to work with and support CLS? Last I heard they were being competed against CLS and another vendor and weren't supposed to talk with them...

Once a decision has been made, those rules don't apply. But it's totally normal for competing vendors to be told not to engage each other during a bid process.

Volunteer parents = vendors. Nice.

Volunteer parents who are providing a fee-based service ARE vendors.

So parents who volunteer to serve on a non-profit aftercare program, set up only to benefit the families of Lafayette, and who's voting members and shareholders are all parents who have children enrolled in the program, and who's only fees collected go to pay for the staff on site who care for your children (and their own) are somehow equal to for profit service providers? When you volunteer to serve on say the Vestry of your church or similar organization, are you somehow no longer a stakeholder in the congregation? Should your own accountability to the congregation, your desire to see the organization serve the congregation and community successfully beyond your one or two year term, and who's "fees" collected go to serve the families who engage in the organization and its mission... sounds more like a partnership... ones that have historically, including here at Lafayette, been built on trust and collaboration. That died the moment the power hungry folks in the front office and their small group of surrogates decided they have an axe to grind. Tell me, how has the track record of these administration takeovers gone recently? How about LEP? Didn't a parent volunteer used to help with that? How is it going now? What about drop off line? How is that going now? Who do you think has the best information regarding logistics and actual data on how to run an after are program at Lafayette? Do you think they were engaged by the administration to find a better, achievable, responsible and sustainable way to serve the parent community? Or were they beaten up, misled, isolated from having transparent dialog with the community, and otherwise ostracized. And who do you think is at the center of it? Funny that the only way to provide feedback or discuss this latest topic is behind closed doors in one-on-one meetings. Public administration policy fail 101. Why might someone not want parents to discuss the issues in a public forum? Transparency maybe?

1. This isn’t church—it’s a child care service provided to parents for a fee. The executive director is paid, the staff are paid. They only people who aren’t paid are the board. This is a service paid for by people who use it.
2. LEP cost parents 30K a year. Flex is free. Do you really think we should be paying 30K for something we can get for free?
3. If LAP has all that info, and they are simply here to help the community, then they can certainly help CLS transition with the same good will they were willing to offer the vendor they endorsed.
4. Agree that the principal’s communication is terrible.

I get the analogy. Maybe the poster could have picked something a little less controversial? Anyway, I hope there is a concerted effort to reach out to the LAP board and re-engage them in the conversation. They probably have the best working knowledge of how to make it run at Lafayette. I guess I would understand though if they were a little tired and put off by all the things that have gone on this year. I don't think I would have the time or patience to deal with it as a working parent.

[Anonymous]

Wow, lots of interesting perspectives here. I really hope that CLS is a success. I am a little worried though that the first year will have a lot of bumps along the way. I don't know how long they have been in discussions with the school or how much research they have been able to do on Lafayette, but I have an underlying feeling that they may not know exactly what they're getting into. Having run a small business that had to grow, I know firsthand how difficult it can be to scale up an organization successfully. They will likely need all the help and input they can get.