Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Expanded Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees press vendors on ELOP pricing and attendance accountability for expanded‑learning proposals
Summary
Board members questioned the per‑student pricing and payment terms for proposed Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) vendors, seeking clearer breakdowns and preregistration‑based accountability before contracting for summer and after‑school programs.
District staff presented several expanded‑learning proposals during the Dec. 9 meeting, and trustees used the discussion to press for clearer fiscal accountability and outcome metrics prior to final contract approvals.
Director Aaron Alexander described multiple proposals: Schoolyard RAP’s African American affinity program (seven Saturdays, up to 100 students, $120,000), a Schoolyard RAP 10‑day summer camp ($150,000 for up to 100 students), UC Merced CalTeach tutoring (staff support for daytime and after‑school classes, contract not to exceed the amount listed in packet), and a UC Merced Bobcat Summer Academy serving up to 100 students per week (six weeks; total up to $260,640). Trustees repeatedly asked how vendors will be paid if fewer students enroll than projected and whether payment should be tied to preregistration or actual attendance to protect fiscal responsibility. One trustee flagged high per‑student line items in vendor cost breakdowns and asked for marketing and enrollment guarantees from vendors who charge flat‑fee per‑day rates for services that require multiple staff and subcontractors.
Staff said some vendors are paid per enrollment (e.g., UC Merced programs) while others incur fixed operational costs and subcontractor commitments that lead to flat‑fee pricing; staff pledged to return with clearer per‑student calculations, proposed attendance thresholds for payment, and recommended contract language about preregistration and minimum staffing guarantees.
Trustees also requested outcome data showing whether participation in contracted services improves reading, math or attendance (district staff said historical slides and a last‑year metrics slide provided average point changes for participating students, and agreed to disaggregate results by demographic group and participation intensity). No final contract award for these programs was recorded at the Dec. 9 meeting; some items were slated for future board consideration.
Trustees asked for the following follow‑up from staff: (1) per‑student cost breakdowns for all proposed vendors, (2) recommended payment terms tied to preregistration or verified attendance for fixed‑cost vendors, (3) disaggregated outcome data for previous participants by demographic and attendance patterns, and (4) a plan to advertise and increase enrollment where projections fell short in prior years.
