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.

There was no pussy-footing. To be clear, the Principal had verbally committed to providing LAP all the space they needed for School Year 2017-2018. As mentioned above, space is just one key ingredient to providing expanded after-care offerings. LAP was expecting to come together with the principal to discuss the space plan and really put in place a more formal agreement about where in the building they would operate for next year. The expectation was that this would be a more detailed conversation to work through the nuances of operating in teacher's classrooms after school, the possibility of rotating through wings of the building, how to handle expanded morning care, etc. The other ingredients were being discussed internally.

Their proposal, which was submitted in April, proposed spots for what- 180 kids? Hardly moving the ball forward. People need to know now, not 20 days prior to occupancy, whether they can access aftercare. NOW.

Which proposal the first one they submitted to maintain the program or the revised one to meet the increased target or when the volunteer LAP program was being competed against for-profit vendors?

Well, four Murch parents in a row post to the board... no longer just coincidence. I hope what was said was true, but it is clear that folks are being asked to post here now. I hope CLS is successful, but without a clear track record of operating a program this large I fear the repercussions if it is not succesful.

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.

Fourth Murch parent -- different perspective. CLS is a small business started by a Murch mom. It does indeed work nicely for younger kids -- albeit at a significantly higher price than is being offered at Lafayette. I do not believe that it consistently serves more than about 50 kids -- others come a couple days for language only -- so the scale up to 300 would be a factor of 7 -- I would be very concerned. It has no Board and no transparency, and like other small organizations, just asks kids that are a problem to leave. Not sure how that works with a group of 300 when its the only game in town. Providers do not have training and we experienced some pretty inappropriate language and handling of discipline issues -- again not a huge deal in a small provider but something I would be very concerned about with a large scale expansion as there are not -- to my knowledge -- set policies or practices that are followed. Finally, it really is geared to younger kids -- very few kids over 2nd grade attend after care although some still do language. If I were a parent I would have some very tough questions about whether CLS really has the ability to do what they are promising and I would insist that some additional governance/transparency be part of the contract. Happy to be proven wrong!

Third Murch parent in a row to respond here. Our child has been in both Xday and Language (no one I know calls it CLS over here.)

We like Language better than Xday as it is more supervised during the free play time. It does have a classroom component and I worry that it is too much instruction and not enough play based learning for young elementary kids after a day of school. That's probably my biggest concern with them. I don't have concerns regarding safety, security or the care that is provided to him.

This to me is the big unknown: IF Language can handle this significant jump in size then I think it will be good for all our kids.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, and I don't know what the controversy is here. I am a Murch parent though, and I heard the other day that CLS is going to do aftercare at Lafayette. In some ways, I have mixed feelings, since CLS is really good and I don't want the Murch program quality diluted, but I know that CLS also had taken on aftercare at SWW, and Murch's program didn't suffer, so I imagine it will work just as well.

At Murch we have XDay, Language, and also some afterschool classes offered by a provider. We're very happy with Language, which does well with kids from pre-K to 5th grade. (We have a 2nd grader.) Some kids do all one program or another. Some mix and match. It works very well. I don't know what the history is here, but we love how personal CLS is and always appreciate how it tries to meet all our needs.

Pretty much concur with this. We have a kindergarten student at Murch who now has done both (PK4 at XDay, K at CLS) plus the afterschool enrichment stuff. From our experience, XDay is much less structured to the point where it's pretty much just supervised recess. CLS offers classes and whatnot. It's more expensive, too, but not prohibitively so. We prefer CLS.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, and I don't know what the controversy is here. I am a Murch parent though, and I heard the other day that CLS is going to do aftercare at Lafayette. In some ways, I have mixed feelings, since CLS is really good and I don't want the Murch program quality diluted, but I know that CLS also had taken on aftercare at SWW, and Murch's program didn't suffer, so I imagine it will work just as well.

At Murch we have XDay, Language, and also some afterschool classes offered by a provider. We're very happy with Language, which does well with kids from pre-K to 5th grade. (We have a 2nd grader.) Some kids do all one program or another. Some mix and match. It works very well. I don't know what the history is here, but we love how personal CLS is and always appreciate how it tries to meet all our needs.

That's great to hear!!

I have not read this whole thread, and I don't know what the controversy is here. I am a Murch parent though, and I heard the other day that CLS is going to do aftercare at Lafayette. In some ways, I have mixed feelings, since CLS is really good and I don't want the Murch program quality diluted, but I know that CLS also had taken on aftercare at SWW, and Murch's program didn't suffer, so I imagine it will work just as well.

At Murch we have XDay, Language, and also some afterschool classes offered by a provider. We're very happy with Language, which does well with kids from pre-K to 5th grade. (We have a 2nd grader.) Some kids do all one program or another. Some mix and match. It works very well. I don't know what the history is here, but we love how personal CLS is and always appreciate how it tries to meet all our needs.

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.

There was no pussy-footing. To be clear, the Principal had verbally committed to providing LAP all the space they needed for School Year 2017-2018. As mentioned above, space is just one key ingredient to providing expanded after-care offerings. LAP was expecting to come together with the principal to discuss the space plan and really put in place a more formal agreement about where in the building they would operate for next year. The expectation was that this would be a more detailed conversation to work through the nuances of operating in teacher's classrooms after school, the possibility of rotating through wings of the building, how to handle expanded morning care, etc. The other ingredients were being discussed internally.

Their proposal, which was submitted in April, proposed spots for what- 180 kids? Hardly moving the ball forward. People need to know now, not 20 days prior to occupancy, whether they can access aftercare. NOW.

Now you do have an answer. You will have CLS. It would be great to hear from some Murch parents here but it's my understanding that the CLS program is a nice fit for the younger students in the school. Murch offers both XDay and CLS. If a proposal was solicited from CLS I'm not sure why the discussion was never had to operate the two programs in parallel as is done at Murch. I have heard the two programs compete for space, but also, the two programs satisfy different price points and programmatic offerings. I think the discussion on this forum serves to demonstrate how diverse the desires of the parent community are. It would be impossible to satisfy everyone, all the time, but there is no reason we can't have open conversations about how to best satisfy the majority.

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.

There was no pussy-footing. To be clear, the Principal had verbally committed to providing LAP all the space they needed for School Year 2017-2018. As mentioned above, space is just one key ingredient to providing expanded after-care offerings. LAP was expecting to come together with the principal to discuss the space plan and really put in place a more formal agreement about where in the building they would operate for next year. The expectation was that this would be a more detailed conversation to work through the nuances of operating in teacher's classrooms after school, the possibility of rotating through wings of the building, how to handle expanded morning care, etc. The other ingredients were being discussed internally.

Their proposal, which was submitted in April, proposed spots for what- 180 kids? Hardly moving the ball forward. People need to know now, not 20 days prior to occupancy, whether they can access aftercare. NOW.

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.

There was no pussy-footing. To be clear, the Principal had verbally committed to providing LAP all the space they needed for School Year 2017-2018. As mentioned above, space is just one key ingredient to providing expanded after-care offerings. LAP was expecting to come together with the principal to discuss the space plan and really put in place a more formal agreement about where in the building they would operate for next year. The expectation was that this would be a more detailed conversation to work through the nuances of operating in teacher's classrooms after school, the possibility of rotating through wings of the building, how to handle expanded morning care, etc. The other ingredients were being discussed internally.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How has the space issue been consistently addressed? I'm curious what you mean by this.