Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

[Anonymous]

If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

[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.

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.

Hmmm. While we have had to make other accommodations the past couple of years due to schedule and haven't been able to utilize LAP, I don't share that sentiment. I guess it is the fact that the organization wouldn't really have any reason to exist if it weren't for the apparent need over the last however many years it has been around, and that they are a nonprofit. But that's just my perspective I guess... like calling city government a vendor... they do collect money from me, for a service that is deemed essential some say, and they pay their staff salaries. I don't think I am quite as cought up in this as others I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

I wonder if that is why LAP was changing their business model and partnering with a vendor? Isn't that essentially how all federal daycare systems are run?

[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.

I assume bid process was used in error since it insinuates a contract with the school.

[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.

Wish we could have the same discussion about the HSA... time for a recompete in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

I wonder if that is why LAP was changing their business model and partnering with a vendor? Isn't that essentially how all federal daycare systems are run?

They weren't partnering though-- they were endorsing. There was no oversight or concrete relationship involved. Just good will.

That's what I don't get-- CLS and Champions wind up being the exact same thing-- an outside vendor with no community oversight. But had Champions been selected, the LAP board would have been happy? Because their guy won?

[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.

I assume bid process was used in error since it insinuates a contract with the school.

There is a contract with the school- it's a building use agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

I wonder if that is why LAP was changing their business model and partnering with a vendor? Isn't that essentially how all federal daycare systems are run?

They weren't partnering though-- they were endorsing. There was no oversight or concrete relationship involved. Just good will.

That's what I don't get-- CLS and Champions wind up being the exact same thing-- an outside vendor with no community oversight. But had Champions been selected, the LAP board would have been happy? Because their guy won?

Don't know. Good question... but it seems clear Dr. B doesn't like them and would prefer them to not be around.

[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.

I assume bid process was used in error since it insinuates a contract.

There is a contract with the school- it's a building use agreement.

So the school competed the building use agreement against multiple vendors (sorry if I offend anyone)... that type of procurement process has tight controls and regulations. I didn't see any of those on display during this process. speaking of the building use agreement, why does there just have to be one provider and one building use agreement? Why can't there be multiple like is done at other schools.

[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.

I assume bid process was used in error since it insinuates a contract.

There is a contract with the school- it's a building use agreement.

So the school competed the building use agreement against multiple vendors (sorry if I offend anyone)... that type of procurement process has tight controls and regulations. I didn't see any of those on display during this process. speaking of the building use agreement, why does there just have to be one provider and one building use agreement? Why can't there be multiple like is done at other schools.

Maybe there can be. I think that's a great idea for the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

I wonder if that is why LAP was changing their business model and partnering with a vendor? Isn't that essentially how all federal daycare systems are run?

They weren't partnering though-- they were endorsing. There was no oversight or concrete relationship involved. Just good will.

That's what I don't get-- CLS and Champions wind up being the exact same thing-- an outside vendor with no community oversight. But had Champions been selected, the LAP board would have been happy? Because their guy won?

Champions is the only one that is licensed by OSSETIA... that was the big differentiator with regards to accountability as I understand it... well, that and cost and track record for spinning up a program for 300 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

I wonder if that is why LAP was changing their business model and partnering with a vendor? Isn't that essentially how all federal daycare systems are run?

They weren't partnering though-- they were endorsing. There was no oversight or concrete relationship involved. Just good will.

That's what I don't get-- CLS and Champions wind up being the exact same thing-- an outside vendor with no community oversight. But had Champions been selected, the LAP board would have been happy? Because their guy won?

Champions is the only one that is licensed by OSSETIA... that was the big differentiator with regards to accountability as I understand it... well, that and cost and track record for spinning up a program for 300 kids.

Sorry... that should have been OSSE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

And keep in mind that many of those enrolled were siblings, so it's not entirely unlikely that only 10-15% of Lafayette families are currently being served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

And keep in mind that many of those enrolled were siblings, so it's not entirely unlikely that only 10-15% of Lafayette families are currently being served.

You may want to retry that math... under that mathematical logic there are some Lafayette families without children you are counted. Good try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the old aftercare program only served 25% or less of the school population, that is clearly not meeting demand. I don't know the length of the waitlists but at other large upper NW ES, the aftercare enrollment is like half the school or 300 kids and at Janney, there is no cap.

And keep in mind that many of those enrolled were siblings, so it's not entirely unlikely that only 10-15% of Lafayette families are currently being served.

You may want to retry that math... under that mathematical logic there are some Lafayette families without children you are counted. Good try though.

Clearly one of you was higher on verbal and the other higher in math on the SAT...