Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, what's done is done (and finally increasing capacity to meet demand is a fantastic thing). let's all make sure to hold the new company accountable to its contract, thank the decades of board members that came before, and lament the loss of community effort/togetherness this event represents.

It really is a shame, from a community perspective.

Is the board completely disbanding? Who will provide oversight to the new contractor?

Yes, but there was talk about them focusing on other stuff. Like all the other schools with outsourced aftercare (which is most) the school will. There's a new parent board that will provide input as well. Maybe that gets formalized somehow at some point.

Anonymous wrote:yes, what's done is done (and finally increasing capacity to meet demand is a fantastic thing). let's all make sure to hold the new company accountable to its contract, thank the decades of board members that came before, and lament the loss of community effort/togetherness this event represents.

It really is a shame, from a community perspective.

Is the board completely disbanding? Who will provide oversight to the new contractor?

Anonymous wrote:yes, what's done is done (and finally increasing capacity to meet demand is a fantastic thing). let's all make sure to hold the new company accountable to its contract, thank the decades of board members that came before, and lament the loss of community effort/togetherness this event represents.

It really is a shame, from a community perspective.

I'm glad the parent group that helped select the new vendor will be actively involved in getting it up and running. That's a good thing.

yes, what's done is done (and finally increasing capacity to meet demand is a fantastic thing). let's all make sure to hold the new company accountable to its contract, thank the decades of board members that came before, and lament the loss of community effort/togetherness this event represents.

It really is a shame, from a community perspective.

Anonymous wrote:Let's not trash the LAP board. Whatever their flaws, they deserve our thanks for many years of service.

I for one want to embrace the change and really look forward to the possibility of using aftercare- hallelujah!

+1 What's done is done. We were in LAP for 3 years and love the staff, and will miss everything that was LAP. The volunteer parent board of LAP worked very hard, especially during this recent period, to try to make things work. The LAP staff, aside from the director, will be interviewed and (if all goes well) offered work with the new program. Lafayette parents now need to focus on making sure the new program is structured the way they want it and gets off to a good start.

Let's not trash the LAP board. Whatever their flaws, they deserve our thanks for many years of service.

I for one want to embrace the change and really look forward to the possibility of using aftercare- hallelujah!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

And yet 3 other vendors thought this wouldn't be an issue...

And the school functions just fine during that day with approaching 800 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

In perhaps the most well educated school zone in the country?

It's more complex than that. Janney+ was originally part of the PTA and as such was able to get their financial backing as they grew. LAP is not part of Lafayette's HSA nor does it want to. But it means that there's no financial cushion or support. Janney also sits on top of AU, giving it access to a ton of students who rotate in easily to staff things, which makes staffing (which is really hard with aftercare) much easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

That's BS. They were told they could have anything but the gym, which is used for other stuff. They wanted their own dedicated space -- they didn't want to have to share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.

In perhaps the most well educated school zone in the country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

And yet 3 other vendors thought this wouldn't be an issue...

No. For next year, she's agreed to let them have classroom space. I've only read the Champions proposal, but they clearly envisioned having classroom space, not being confined to the cafeteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

And yet 3 other vendors thought this wouldn't be an issue...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

They didn't fight against change and growth. They were happy to grow, but needed things like space in the school (you can't have 300 kids in the cafeteria). Dr. B was unwilling to provide that this year and so set them up to fail.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

Yes, it's too bad LAP fought so hard against change and growth instead of figuring out how to serve the school community with the existing program. The transition is going to be tough. It would have been easier if LAP had focused its efforts on coming up with a solution for growth during the last year or more.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting since there are other home-grown afterschool programs that can have 300+ kids, and that the parent board (after 40 years) just decided to disband rather than figure out how to scale up.

They looked at Janney+ model- if that is who you mean- but it's very complex and there were clearly some MBAs or similar at work and I don't think they felt they could replicate it.