Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping in anticipation of tonight's info session

Were people who were at the info session satisfied?

I was satisfied with CLS information, some additional questions but excited about a new provider that will serve more families. Was also embarrassed by the bratty and entitled behavior of some people of the parents with their questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping in anticipation of tonight's info session

Were people who were at the info session satisfied?

Not entirely.

Anonymous wrote:Bumping in anticipation of tonight's info session

Were people who were at the info session satisfied?

Bumping in anticipation of tonight's info session

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nope. I was the first one. No one asked me. I just saw the thread, and I saw posters asking for input from Murch parents, so I gave input. Clearly there are some bad feelings and suspicious among the Lafayette community right now.

Truly, I don't understand the Lafayette situation. But if you want my off the cuff thoughts, I don't know why Lafayette couldn't have its LAP or whatever it is called and Language as choices, like Murch does. But, as I said, I really don't know the details and don't want to know them.

Space. CLS is offsite but closeby Murch. No similar church or facility to Lafayette.

The better comparator for Lafayette is SWW at Francis Stevens, not Murch. That's the program being replicated.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nope. I was the first one. No one asked me. I just saw the thread, and I saw posters asking for input from Murch parents, so I gave input. Clearly there are some bad feelings and suspicious among the Lafayette community right now.

Truly, I don't understand the Lafayette situation. But if you want my off the cuff thoughts, I don't know why Lafayette couldn't have its LAP or whatever it is called and Language as choices, like Murch does. But, as I said, I really don't know the details and don't want to know them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you could take this discussion to your school listserv? Or an HSA meeting?

We've tried to discuss this and similar issues at hsa meetings, but they are chaired by parents who won't countenance any criticism of Dr. B. Which is a large part of the problem.

Maybe if it were couched as 'concerns about programming' or 'issues' and not a personal attack against the principal, it would be received as a helpful discussion point? I just attended the first HSA meeting of the year, which felt like a lynch-mob and there was plenty of 'allowed' criticism of Dr B. I do think there's a group of parents at the school who would be much more comfortable in a private school environment where they could control things more readily. Or Waldorf honestly. Even in private school you can't have everything you want and the principal is expected to act with some integrity as a professional. The nastiness and approach like this just doesn't seem constructive.

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.

Yes and most parents don't stay. It really is good for young kids who are well behaved and don't need a lot of time outside -- and for parents with the resources to pay for it. All fine for a small secondary provider. At Murch the other program -- which suffers from many of the same issues as it sounds like affected LAP -- has a volunteer parent board and is much better at flexibility, inclusion, at accommodating a diverse set of kids, at providing healthy snacks at making sure all the kids get outdoor exercise and at resolving issues that arise. The issue is not whether CLS is good now -- it is. The issue is whether it can possibly expand this fast and actually serve that many kids and what recourse do parents have when it can't -- apparently none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you could take this discussion to your school listserv? Or an HSA meeting?

We've tried to discuss this and similar issues at hsa meetings, but they are chaired by parents who won't countenance any criticism of Dr. B. Which is a large part of the problem.

Agree. The only forum appears to be one-on-one closed door meetings with Dr. B.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you could take this discussion to your school listserv? Or an HSA meeting?

We've tried to discuss this and similar issues at hsa meetings, but they are chaired by parents who won't countenance any criticism of Dr. B. Which is a large part of the problem.

Maybe you could take this discussion to your school listserv? Or an HSA meeting?

Anonymous wrote:I'm constantly perplexed with the level of nasty discourse in the school regarding topics that, while may require discussion, get personal and nasty so quickly. We're friends and neighbors people! I'd like for us all to be better role models for our kids.

I've wondered this myself, but I think it comes down to the types of people we are-- I find Laf families to be engaged, informed and opinionated! Which I think is a good thing. There's at least 1000+ parents in our community and that's a lot of strong opinions.

Now, the nastiness on this forum specifically is also down to DCUMitis.

I'm constantly perplexed with the level of nasty discourse in the school regarding topics that, while may require discussion, get personal and nasty so quickly. We're friends and neighbors people! I'd like for us all to be better role models for our kids.

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.

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

Did you run for election? I agree with you, but the only way the HSA changes is if more vocal people run against Dr. B's puppets.

Any idea how the request for vendors was publicized? It seems odd that there were only three groups considered.