Reply to Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Tell me about Lafayette's aftercare program"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [b]$35,000[/b] per year to run. FLEX is $0. [/quote]

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

[list]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.  [b]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.[/b]
 [/list]
[list]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.[/list]
[list]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.[/list]
[list]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?[/list]
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics