Friday, January 18, 2013

APP in the NE and capacity planning

Big changes in the works to deal with capacity issues in the NE. Seattle Schools Community Forum just put up a good post on it, "No Clear Answer for the NE".

By request, let's open a thread to discuss APP specific issues with the plans for the NE. In particular, as a couple parents point out, some of the plans would start a new middle school in the NE and likely lead to a split at the middle school level for APP, but let's also open this up broadly to discussion of all the capacity plans in the NE and what they may mean for APP.

38 comments :

Anonymous said...

The only option that I can give a resounding "No" is the 6th grade academy. The JAMS scenario is completely unclear to me. Where would the existing JAK8 go? Is there even room to co-locate? Would classes be in portables? What students would go there? Would it roll up from 6th grade? Would they simply assign students there geographically? What is the long term plan for APP? Will they be split btween the new WP (and housed at JM) and JAMS? I don't know what saying "yes" to JAMS means for any community.

Anonymous said...

Abandon ship. Grab a life vest, or an application for private school. We are going down.......

-Long gone

Anonymous said...

It is past time for Bob Vaughan to address the APP community. How do we get a Q and A with him? A time where he could come talk about the future of advanced learning? Or is that a pipe dream? How about an email from him, laying out what is going on, what changes are in the works, and the general future of APP for current and prospective families? Can we get our APP-AC on this? I'm not sure they are still even operating - we hear so little. It would be great if the school reps would send a communication to their schools about what (if anything) they are doing behind the scenes. So much uncertainty, and no leadership. Is anyone steering the ship? I'd like to give Bob V. one more chance to come out and address us as concerned parents.
-Please throw some support behind this!

Anonymous said...

Anon-

You don't want to hear him speak. I, unfortunately, have heard him speak. You will end up more depressed and more angry.

At the first split, he told us there was nothing to do and that he had no power. I can't imagine you'll hear anything different now. We heard nothing from him when Lowell was moved to Lincoln with ZERO notice. Where was he for the months before that when everyone was telling him Lowell was too full?

Bob Vaughan is no fighter for AL. I believe he wants to do a good job and cares about the kids (at least sometimes), but he is in way over his head.

You should email him and tell him this is what you want. I am pretty sure that you'll be disappointed with what you hear. This is the guy who was just quoted in the Seattle Times talking about how "awesome" it is that so many new kids are qualifying for APP based on the MAP test. He is a HUGE supporter of the MAP test. Scary.

-realist

Anonymous said...

Realist -
You're right of course. I am just feeling desperate. I have friends in other districts with kids in advanced programs, and there are newsletters and websites and presentations and it is depressing how we have nothing. Any suggestions? Is there anything left to save of APP? Do we know of one advocate in the district? SHould we petition Banda for Vaughan's removal? Or should we just pitch it all and go charter? Seriously, I'm looking for suggestions.
-Voted against charters, but would now be in

Anonymous said...

Received this email today. Haven't heard anything about splitting NE middle APP, but this capacity stuff is nonsense. If you haven't voiced your opinion to SPS yet, today's the day! I agree with what's below ... but whatever your opinion, make your voice heard!

Timeline:
1/17 District Operation work session today 3:30-5:15 @ John Stanford Center (open to public)
1/18 District submits finalized transition plan to school board
1/23 School Board votes on finalized transition plan

TODAY - Please send an email to the district telling them to open Jane Addams as a reference area comprehensive middle school in 2013-2014 with a dedicated principal, design team, hiring committee, budget and mitigation funds to help start up programs such as music, language and after school programs. Opening Jane Addams Middle School (JAMS) aligns with the district's long term plan making it the most fiscally responsible option. It also benefits the greatest number of students and provides the district with options if enrollment numbers exceed projections.


Other things to consider:
• The Jane Addams building can accommodate nearly 1,000 middle schoolers and sits on 18 acres of land. The current option k-8 school in Jane Addams has just over 500 students.
• Currently the district is working with "projected" enrollment numbers. If actual enrollment numbers come in higher, there is no back-up plan for Hamilton which cannot house portables. Laurelhurst and 6th grade APP students could be redirected in JUNE.
• Ecsktein is unsafe and adding additional students from Laurelhurst to its current overcrowding is unacceptable
• With the 4th grade enrollment bubble, the district may not have the option to provide a 6th grade roll-up at JAMS in 2014-2015. Ripping 6,7 and 8th grade students from Eckstein may be the only option to alleviate overcrowding at Eckstien and seed JAMS
• The district and school board cannot commit beyond this annual transition plan, so the "do nothing" for 2013-2014 realistically puts us back in this situation again next year

Apparently the district will be tabulating email responses for the school board. Didn't realize that's how decisions are made. So PLEASE take two minutes to email RIGHT NOW (cut and paste from this or write your own). The Jane Addams option program is actively campaigning for the 6th grade academy, so without your voice that's where we will land.

- Ridonkulous

Audrey said...

I want to send out my email but I want to understand a couple additional points in more detail. Is there a statement from the principal of JA that talks about the perspective from their side? It has to be a workable solution for the current program that is there it would seem. To move the whole existing program is significant and while it does sound like they have room to be co-located and have both programs, it would be helpful to hear the concerns they have.

If Eckstein is already so overcrowded how can they even entertain the idea of moving the feeder patterns for Laurelhurst? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

Ridonkulus: Can you please give more detail on your point?

With the 4th grade enrollment bubble, the district may not have the option to provide a 6th grade roll-up at JAMS in 2014-2015. Ripping 6,7 and 8th grade students from Eckstein may be the only option to alleviate overcrowding at Eckstien and seed JAMS.

Maybe you can provide an example, please? I don’t follow.

~ALRich

Anonymous said...

What is the plan for APP? In considering the JAMS scenario, it is not clear who will fill a newly created school. If equity is a cited concern, seeding it with APP is not beyond the realm of possibility.

foot in both worlds said...

Thanks for asking about the perspective from Jane Addams K8.

Here is the most recent statement made by the Jane Addams BEX Task Force - which is working closely with their Principal:

In the past few days, due to incredible feedback from across the North Seattle school communities, the School Board members and District Staff have begun considering the possibility of making no changes to the School Assignment Plan for the Northeast section of town in 2013, thus allowing more time to sufficiently plan and prepare for changes starting in 2014. Principal Nelson and the JA BEX Task Force are fully in support of delaying these changes for the following reasons:

· The costs and impacts of the current plan are far too significant for the amount of capacity relief it provides – only about 100 fewer students at Eckstein and Hamilton. The Principals at both of those schools have told the District that they will be okay for another year.

· There is not enough time for families to feel confident in the District’s ability to plan and implement major changes (either a 6th grade academy or assignment to a K-8 for middle school) for 2013. An additional year will give the District, School Board, and public time to fully understand and evaluate the impact and benefits of the options. The current process has been too rushed and too convoluted for people to truly understand what each scenario would look like, and what kind of capacity relief it would really provide.

· Waiting until after the levy passes gives the District time to create a multi-year transition strategy that is aligned with their long term goals.

· Delaying any changes allows the JA K-8 program to continue to build on our success without disruption in 2013; and better prepare us for the remainder of the transition period until our new building is ready in 2016.

We encourage everyone to write the Board and District Staff once again in support of this new direction. There appears to be a strong outpouring of support from our neighboring schools as well, so our voices will joining a chorus of others who want a better process and well-thought plan.
(cont)

foot in both worlds said...

(cont)

Whenever you write the Board or Staff, or talk to your NE neighbors and friends, here are a few additional thoughts to keep in mind as talking points:

· We support a comprehensive middle school at Jane Addams – but we want to see a well planned and implemented school, and the currently proposed plan (Scenario 5) does not do that. We desire a solution that allows us to stay in our building until we move to our new school, and create a fair and equitable launch plan for the new middle school.

· Until more schools are built – we cannot afford empty seats at any NE school (elementary OR middle). Moving us out prematurely leaves the JA building with hundreds of empty seats, and creates huge capacity issues elsewhere.

· Moving us to an interim site also interrupts the educational stability for our important populations of Special Ed, Self-Contained Autism, ELL and FRL students who are at much greater long term risk from multiple disruptions.

NOTE: The good news is that the District and Board have heard this appeal – they are now publically saying it is their intent to have us stay in the building if at all possible. So we can acknowledge their support, but need to keep up the message.

· And very importantly – it is not about being LOUDER than the other neighborhoods. It is about speaking up for the people who aren’t able to advocate for themselves. Many in our JA community AND at other North Northeast schools face language, economic, educational, or cultural barriers that make it difficult for them to attend meetings or write letters, or even have the language comfort and familiarity to express their needs. We need to keep speaking on their behalf too.

· Finally, we need to continue to counter the many misconceptions and flat out errors flying around about the “unused/empty space” in the Jane Addams building:

o The building does not currently have many empty seats (as has been widely reported). K-8 capacity is 652, 6-8 capacity is 877. And these numbers are AFTER planned summer 2013 renovations that will ADD 4 more classrooms – current capacity numbers are actually smaller than this. All of our available homerooms are in use this year.

o Our current enrollment is 581- PLUS our developmental preschool program.

o The District projected enrollment for JA K-8 is 687 next year (without assignment students). We have EXCEEDED district projections for our enrollment every year of our existence.

Thanks again for your incredible support of our School. Keep up the hard work.

-The Jane Addams BEX Task Force

Anonymous said...

@ Ridonkulous

Whoever put that email together is missing a few big points.

JAMS as a middle school will be well under 1,000 kids. It is a little smaller than Hamilton.

There are almost 600 students in the building with a substantial special ed population. So every classroom is used as a classroom. If you rounded the sped rooms up so that it was the same as gen ed classes that would add over 100 more students.

A big issue is that there is nowhere to put these sped students in the NE because everything is FULL.

If it was as easy as that email you posted indicated, it would already have been done.

- another ne parent

Puzzled said...

I'm not seeing any connection between co-housing JAMS with JA K-8 this coming year (against the desires of both populations) and a better outcome for APP. Why should an APP parent be fighting this fight?

Anonymous said...

Puzzled -- I'm dizzy trying to follow all this, but I think this is the answer to your question. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong:

The argument I think I'm hearing is that starting up the JAMS this year would mean some NE students would be assigned to JAMS instead of Eckstein. The Laurelhurst 6th graders would go back to Eckstein, instead of Hamilton, thus alleviating the pressure at Hamilton.

One of many counter-arguments is that not THAT much space would be opened up at either Eckstein or Hamilton for 2013, so why rush and put everyone through all that when everyone could hold out just one more year, allow time for planning, and be clearer on future feeder patterns?

And to your question on how this affects APP...a major concern with the above counter-argument is the likelihood that when enrollment numbers are out in June, everyone will realize that it was overly optimistic to think that Hamilton could absorb all the kids feeding in (including a new crop of APP 6th graders not previous enrolled in APP). Then what? Those who've been around APP a few years have a good idea what ... it would most likely involve yanking APP 6th graders out of Hamilton on short notice and putting them in some other school situation. And the thing is, some of those families lived through the first APP split and transition, then the move to Lincoln and that transition. So such possibilities are all too real.

--Dizzy Lincoln parent

Anonymous said...

Puzzled:

Another perspective is that Lincoln and Hamilton APP families come from all over the north Seattle and we have students from every northend elementary and middle school. That contributes to a complicated network of connections and insights that guides our APP PTA leaders. And many of our PTA leaders are from NE schools and neighborhoods where some have already been involved in capacity issues and advocacy for years. Many of them have a good understanding of the history, enrollment numbers, feeder patterns, neighborhoods, tradeoffs, and of how the district works. I'm grateful for the analytical thinking, dedication, and tenacity of our PTA leadership. They are looking out for the future of APP, but I believe they are also concerned about and cognizant of the impacts of district decision on students in other schools and programs as well. I, for one, am extending some trust in their recommendations.

(less) puzzled said...

Dizzy, thanks for answering my question. Your explanation makes sense as to why some are advocating not delaying JAMS a year. After thinking it over, however, I feel it is not in the APP community's interest to be advocating for this when the John Rogers, Sacajawea, Olympic Hills and JA K-8 communities want to wait a year.

When the District screws up, APP is first in line to get screwed over. This sucks. It's unfair. To whole families and especially the children themselves. But it's also the reality of how the district operates and that is not going to change whether JAMS starts this year or next.

I'd rather support the communities directly affected by the JAMS rollup by supporting the "no boundary changes" option and take my chances that APP doesn't get evicted from Hamiltons, than alienate those communities with the idea that a marginal amount of extra capacity would make a difference. I say this both from my "do unto others" upbringing and from the strategic point of view that having the support of those communities will help us in the long run.

Thanks again Dizzy. Your explanation really helped me clarify my thinking around this.

Anonymous said...

Reposting my comment from the Save Seattle Blog here:

I am sorry to see this argument becoming so negative, as school communities are pitted against school communities. I also am sorry that people are attacking hard-working and well-meaning PTA leaders. I have no idea why anyone would sign up for that job - it is truly thankless. I think some people think that the PTA should gather consensus on every single issue - it certainly wasn't possibly with this fiasco of timing from the district. I know the PTA struggles to get people to serve each year - lord knows I would never sign up. But those that take it on have to be more "in the know" than I given the hours they put in and conversations they have with district officials and others and I have to trust their judgment to a certain extent. If I don't agree with every single thing they do, well that's the price I pay for not doing it myself and I am free to send my own emails. I am thrilled that the PTA presidents had a summit meeting (why didn't the district ever think of this?) and I'm going to go with their recs. I'm guessing there are personal dislikes involved here, but I wish we could keep that off the blog. Let's remember who is to blame - the district - and the rest of us are just trying to do what is right for our kids. As for me, my family has benefited from so much cool stuff the PTA has funded or organized, it seems churlish to complain about leadership on this issue.
-if you don't like it, serve next year

word said...

I haven't seen any convincing projections that indicate that dramatic changes need to be made at this time. Please email the links to such projects if you know of them. At HIMS my daughter mentioned that there are tons of unused lockers and this observation is backed up by the Principal who states they can handle the influx for another year. Furthermore, at our elementary schools portables were used very effectively to minimize relocating the kids.

I have noticed that the SPS react on a yearly basis with no consideration of data on future enrollment - despite paying a pretty penny to employ a demographer. I base my opinion on this by observing the school closing fiascos in the NW. All you had to do is walk around the NW neighborhoods and see the changing demographics and know that closing any of the NW schools is madness. Now they are reopening at huge expense.

We finally opted for APP middle school to achieve a degree of stability with respect to advanced learning (I know - ha ha), and I see the same short-sighted hand wringing and knee-jerk reactions continuing into the Banda administration. For these reasons I hope the SPS would seriously consider the option of doing nothing. It doesn't sound sexy, but it can often be the right thing to do. Plus it gives the teachers a predictable framework to develop consistent curricula. We need a steady hand at the helm of the SPS, not a race car driver swerving all over the place (and ultimately crashing).

-Just my 2 cents

Anonymous said...

Word-

HIMS is not allowed to have portables due to the small footprint of the school. Lowell is not allowed portables either, though for a different reason.

Yes, the principal is saying next year will work. I am still concerned because the Lowell principal was telling us the same thing and then we were moved at the last minute. The district has trained me well to not believe anything that comes out of someone who works for them. That tactic has, unfortunately, served me very well.

I, too, am disappointed that the district still can't figure out how to look more than five minutes into the future. I know school board members were hearing about all of these same issues five years ago at the time of the first split. District officials also heard about these issues from parents. Too bad none of them listened.

-realist

word said...

Realist-

Thanks for the info - I share your fear for last minute moves - I have seen this as well.

-feeling doomed

JB said...

Two questions:

If we opt for HIMS APP and they pull a last minute switch to another location, do we have a way back into our neighborhood middle school?

And, does HIMS allow a kid to shadow another kid for a day, to help make this fairly big decision? HIMS has only one open house, Feb 28, in the evening. So we won't have the chance to see the school in action. Is this typical? (Sorry, that's 3 questions.)

I feel like they are making the decision to access the program very difficult...maybe on purpose.

Considering HIMS

Anonymous said...

The school generally doesn't like the disruption of daytime tours - they almost didn't have them last year. You can request a daytime visit on a individual student basis (with a parent present), but I'm not sure how many requests they can honor. You can do the same for your neighborhood school.

Anonymous said...

@ JB

Yup, you are taking a leap of faith with APP middle school. The good news. You are taking a leap of faith with your neighborhood middle school as well. All of the boundaries are going to be re-drawn for 2014 so at the moment, there aren't many safe bets.

New boundaries will likely be drawn extremely close to some of the middle schools in order to draw boundaries for FIVE schools instead of three. As such, who knows who will be where and whether or not upper grades will stay in their school.

Lori said...

I am almost certain you can opt into your neighborhood school anytime thru September 30 of the school year. I am pretty sure a Lincoln parent told me earlier this year that they had looked into it as a possibility for their child and that is what they were told. But still probably best to confirm it with the district!

I think that is why the district scrapped the "leave 6th grade APP at Lincoln" plan in favor of the preposterous "6th grade academy" plan. Anyone who didn't want their 6th grader to stay at Lincoln could just opt back into their neighborhood school, and in the cases of Hamilton and Eckstein, it would worsen the crowding.

By subjecting ALL 6th graders to the academy, parents wouldn't have a "fall-back" position because opting out of APP would become meaningless: you'd still be stuck with the academy.

Of course, by choosing the "do nothing" plan for next year, they are back in the same boat where late spring/summer changes may be needed.

I've heard that at some Eckstein feeder schools, nearly every 5th grader did the advanced learning testing this year in hopes of testing into APP to avoid Eckstein over-crowding. If a greater than expected number of kids enroll to APP, it might exceed Hamilton's ability to absorb them all.

Of course, they won't figure this out until April (optimstic!) or May (more likely; see Lowell experience in 2011) and there will again be many meetings and discussions, and a decision to move *someone* will come in July (see Lowell experience). And instead of using the current 9 months or so to plan for starting up a desperately needed middle school in the NE that they need to open anyway, we'll have 2 months, once again, to slap together a short-term "solution."

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the district is spot-on accurate with its enrollment projections this fall and knows exactly how parents will make choices during open enrollment in the midst of all this uncertainty. I sure hope this is the case.

Anonymous said...

The two posters that reported that the HIMS principal "...said it can work for next year." Where did you see that or hear her say that? To my knowledge she has said no such thing. She's new and I doubt would be making any such promises.

Anonymous said...

She has said that HIMS would be okay for one more year. She even had a meeting with the district about it.

You can email her and ask.

-HIMS parent

Lori said...

As I understand it, Hamilton can make it work to grow from about 973 students this year to 1,046 next year. The latter number is the projected enrollment for the district's "No feeder pattern/boundary change" option presented to the public prior to the January 17 work session.

The big unknown, at least to me, is what happens if Hamilton's numbers are 1,060 or 1,080, or 1,100 after open enrollment? Is there room for greater-than-projected students? And if not, what are the contingency plans?

There appears to be a PTA coffee chat at Hamilton this Friday morning. I hope if anyone goes, they ask what the plan is if enrollment exceeds projections.

Anonymous said...

Lori-

The HIMS Coffee does not include the principal. We moved from Lincoln to HIMS, and that's one of the things that has disappointed me. I really liked hearing from the principal with some regularity.

The coffee is hosted by the PTA, so they would probably be saying similar info to Lincoln. I would also say I have a strong impression that the Lincoln PTA is more in the know than HIMS'.

-HIMS parent

Anonymous said...

Are people concerned about large numbers of kids from the north end (Sac, John Rogers and Olympic Hills) moving in droves to HIMS if they get assigned to Jane Addams K-8 for middle school instead of Eckstein? That seems just as likely (if not more so) as 'everyone' from View Ridge going to APP for next year. This is a complicated issue, there is not enough room anywhere and every action has ripple effects throughout the north end.

Anonymous said...

The problem at Hamilton (and Eckstein) is going to be compounded with the increasing number of kids each year across the north end and in APP as well. The number of kids in each elementary grade is larger than the one it follows. Even if they somehow squeeze all the kids into Hamilton this coming year, the kids moving to high school the next fall won't leave enough room for the upcoming 6th graders (today's 4th graders) in 2014. The following year is even worse with a really large 3rd grade class.

Someone is going to have to move. And even then the middle schools will still be overcrowded. Better to relieve at least a little of the pressure on the northend middle school enrollment by starting up Jane Addams Middle Schools in 2013. They can still co-house with JA K-8 for at least a year.

Anonymous said...

Anon@9:56pm: How can they co-house for a year? Do you mean portables? So far, the "just co-house at JA K-8" argument appears to lack any actual plan of where those middle schoolers could sit. The facts appear to be that there are zero unused classrooms at JA K-8, and that SPS certainly can't exceed the contractual class-size limits at JA K-8. And JA K-8 already has a waitlist for how many grades now? I'm very concerned that we (APP community) keep pushing for options that aren't actually workable, that are based on second-hand information from our parent leadership. And that the result will be a different plan plopping into our collective lap in June after school's out - a plan that's had zero constructive input from our community. Not to mention, much anxiety and wasted energy for other SPS parent communities along the way. I would love for people to stop saying we can squeeze a start-up MS into JA until they have picked up the phone and checked it for themselves - call someone who works on the issue whose kid is not in APP or Eckstein. It's that easy.

-Watch out in June

Anonymous said...

JA doesn't have any unused classrooms not because they are so full, but because they are using classrooms for things other crowded schools have not had the luxury to use exp - an art room, a choir room, etc. etc. when I toured last year, it was very appealing/seemed like a private school with all the great classrooms they had. My family may be able to live comfortably in a 2,000 square foot house, but give me a 4,000 square foot one, and you can bet I will find a use for ll the extra space.

NE Mom of 3

Anonymous said...

NE Mom of 3, you're at best talking about 2 - 4 classrooms. Not enough for a lot of middleschoolers. Also that line of argument just leads to Lincoln, which is rolling in extra classrooms. At JA I think it's more like 2 classrooms for art rooms etc now, since JA added regular classes to at least one grade if not more to ease their waitlist. I've toured JA too. Go tour now. It's not like a private school. Let's work with facts, all of us.

And, let's all of us in the APP community please stop talking about JA like they're a nefarious sneaky enemy. We are all parents, we're all neighbors. Let's also insist that our leadership, in SNAPP PTA, on FACMAC, everywhere, use civility. Poisonous talk doesn't help APP kids. How many of us have talked privately about how we don't like it, it's sad, it's embarrassing, it's counterproductive, etc? So let's stop tolerating it.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, the capacity situation has reached the "you have an art room, you are not doing your part!" phase of the problem.

The issue is that the entire district is running over 100% capacity. The numbers in the north end are well past that 100% mark. We are long past the classroom here, classroom there part of the solution.

The district is buying more than 35 portables this year in addition to the more than 30 last year and the year before. 30-some portables roughly translates in to a entire secondary school. What is really needed is a group of people to starting asking for big money because this problem is huge.

- old school rodeo

Anonymous said...

In the NE capacity discussions here and over on the Seattle Schools Blog, people keep referring to "our APP leadership." Who are these leaders, and whom do they represent? As far as I understand there is a group at Lincoln, which I believe calls itself the Seattle North APP--but it's really just the APP@Lincoln PTA, no? They certainly have not reached out to Hamilton APP families, so it seems to me a name change is in order... To presume to speak for all north end APP would be overstepping--especially since many who hold off on APP until middle school may have very different views and priorities. Seattle North APP??? Not.

HIMSmom

Anonymous said...

HIMS Mom - you're right Seattle North APP (SNAPP) represents elementary school APP. However, bear in mind that the reason they come up with that name was due to the ever-changing school names (from Lowell to Lowell@Lincoln to APP@Lincoln). You wouldn't believe how long and how hard it was to get an official name from the district. Hence the use of SNAPP. And you're right - it would be more accurate if it contained the word "elementary" - but please remember that it came from volunteer parents who were scrambling to create a new school in 2 months after they were kicked out of Lowell.

Lincoln and HIMS mom

Anonymous said...

To continue my previous post - the name SNAPP wasn't meant to convey that the group was speaking on behalf of all north-end families. It was thought up by a group of volunteer parents who were doing the best they could at the time.

Lincoln and HIMS mom

Anonymous said...

The poster above is correct. I will also add that there was a lot of talk of an APP 1-8 at the time. KSB is a huge fan of that idea.

-another SNAPP parent

Anonymous said...

No discredit or disrespect meant to the SNAPP at all, and apologies if it came off that way!

That said, I do think it's important that the larger community--and perhaps SPS as well?--recognize that SNAPP doesn't speak for north end APP overall, just the elementary portion. When people hear that SNAPP issued a statement or endorsed something, it's easy for them to assume that the North APP families have been represented. Given this perception, and given the potentially significantly different views of those who opted out of APP at the elementary level, I believe it's especially important for SNAPP to be clear in it's external communications that this is only one segment of APP North folks. It may even strengthen the standing of APP in the North to be clear that there are multiple stakeholder groups here.

None of this is to say that SNAPP isn't doing a great job on behalf of its constituents--it's just that many APP North parents are not a part of this constituency and never have been.

My two cents,
HIMSmom