Spanish Immersion Community Table Session

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how many students need to be moved out of Gunston? More than 300? If you take the 300 in immersion and move them to WMS and then move kids into Hamm with boundaries is that not fixing the issue of too few kids at WMS and Hamm and too many at Gunston? You act as if the only ways to move students are the two maps/scenarios they put out to bolster their foregone decision. It’s not. Immersion out of Gunston to WMS, shift TJ/Swanson PUs to Hamm and I think we’re there. I’m not saying this is the best way, but it is a possibility and should be looked at in terms of how many buses it requires and how many neighborhood students would be moved/realigned. That hasn’t happened, and “because it’s bad for
Immersion” doesn’t cut it.

If a significant number of immersion students zoned for Gunston, Kenmore and TJ don't agree to move to WMS (highly likely), then you haven't moved 300 students. You are back in the same pickle with needing to move neighborhood boundaries to move more students north. You've harmed the program without accomplishing your objective of protecting a few Taylor students from being rezoned.

Why would Kenmore and TJ students refuse WMS, its about the same distance and in fact Kenmore to WMS is shorter than Kenmore to Gunston.

I have no idea how many immersion students originate from Gunston, that is not show in transfer report I saw.

Perhaps read the thread? Goodness. This has been well discussed.

The thread says WMS is too far north, yet WMS is CLOSER to Kenmore than the current Gunston commute. So there is no reason

I guess I am not sure why that matters? The program is moving from gunston to kennore or WMS? Gunston is closer to kenmore than it is to WMS. Gunston is also closer to TJ than WMS is to TJ. The bulk of immersion kids come from gunston, TJ and Kenmore. I think I read the vast majority are from gunston (but don't have that data).

Don’t lie. Kenmore is closer to WMS than Gunston, I just mapped it. TJ is closer to Gunston, but the route to WMS is on the faster north section of George Mason rather than Wash Blvd with way more traffic.

I am not lying. I never said kenmore was not closer. I said what the heck does that have to do with anything? Immersion families aren't 100% from Kenmore as I was attempting to point out when you ignored everything I said?

I didn't even mention Kenmore's distance to WMS.

Same poster here. I get it. You are talking about the hispanic families at kenmore and how it's better for them? Sure. What about the families that are zoned gunston and TJ? The idea behind moving to Kenmore is that it's in the middle for EVERYONE.

You're assuming immersion students are evenly distributed across the county. I'd like to see data on that because that assumption does not match where the families I know live.

I am assuming students that are in immersion are largely zoned or gunston, tj and Kenmore currently. Actually I am not assuming. I am basing it on the 2022-2023 aps transfer data! Gunston received 54 students from Hamm, 152 from TJ, 106 from Kenmore, 30 from Swanson, and 16 from WMS. Granted some of those are Montessori and it doesn't list students zoned for Gunston since they aren't transfers. But it's not hard to see the majority of MS immersion students are zoned for TJ, Kenmore and Gunston.

https://www.apsva.us/statistics/enrollment/

This is very strong rationale for moving immersion to Kenmore, since the bulk of students are from Kenmore and TJ. Kenmore's boundary goes a bit north of 50, more so than TJ's (?) And there are students from Swanson, which is north of Kenmore but seems closer than Hamm is to TJ (again, ?) But with the remaining 16 from Williamsburg, the scale tips to Kenmore for best location. It is interesting how few immersion students actually come from Gunston, since Claremont isn't that far away.

Would like to know how many of those WMS and Hamm students in particular are Montessori rather than immersion. I thought there were only about 300 total immersion students; and these numbers add up to over 250 without counting Gunston-zoned students. Still, more students closer to Gunston than to Williamsburg.

I understand the "space available" argument for moving immersion to WHS; but the strongest case for Kenmore is right here in these numbers.
1. Better serves the program
2. More centrally located for all participants
3. requires boundary shifts that ultimately would help fill Williamsburg and help keep it filled consistently, not relying on the gamble that enough immersion students would continue. Of course, maybe the winds would shift and more Key students would continue through MS instead of Claremont students; but then that puts the high school program at Wakefield in a more questionable future. I really doubt that many north Arlington students are going to send their kids to Wakefield. After all, that's why they're all living in north Arlington, right? And if the south Arlington families don't continue on at Williamsburg, they aren't going to jump back in in high school. Still, I guess APS could let the program become a north Arlington thing and move high school to YHS. If all those SA families are willing to keep going up to WMS and YHS for 7 years, maybe some demographic shifts will improve the diversity at YHS and WHS. My bet is on immersion at Kenmore/WHS.

So I don't have numbers from this year. BUT last year there were 253 immersion students and 44 Montessori students who weren't zoned for Gunston. If you include the Gunston zoned kids the Immersion number is 310 and Montessori is 70. I am also surprised it's not more Gunston kids, but the current population distribution is kind of off because some of this current set of kids had guaranteed admission based on their neighborhood. I know that at least one of the neighborhoods that used to have guaranteed admission was zoned for TJ (the Claremont neighborhood). Drew also had guaranteed admission and were zoned for Gunston but is a small population base compared to some other schools AND also had a lot of kids going into Montessori. So, in another couple years that population draw might seem a bit different.

But yes, there are many reasons to send the program to Kenmore. As I said my kid is in immersion. Ideally, I would prefer it stay there because we love it there. But Kenmore does make sense for the strength of the program. Which despite what many folks on here want to hear, should be a consideration.

If most immersion students come from Kenmore, and only 50 kids come from Gunston, WMS makes a lot of sense since it’s closer to Kenmore than Gunston is to Kenmore. And it has capacity.

1) The decision is NOT Gunston vs. WMS. The decision is KENMORE vs. WMS. Do you know what is closer to Kenmore? KENMORE.

2) The most kids do not come from Kenmore. They come from TJ zones.

But i am done with this. You are clearly just trying to be annoying.

1) The decision is where can immersion go with best outcome for immersion and neighborhood students. It could stay at Gunston and they just redraw boundaries, it could go to TJ if they get over IB Immersion overlap, etc. if Gunston was fine for years, then WMS is even closer.

2) reports I see more transfers from Kenmore, but maybe the latest numbers they swap? But TJ to WMS is equivalent to Kenmore to Gunston, so it really is a wash.

Logistically, WMS, Kenmore, Gunston, all work. It comes down to capacity utilization and impact on busing and boundaries. WMS should be investigated closely, as it will likely yield the fewest busing needs through the system, full stop.

WMS does not work because it does not feed to Gunston. Immersion isn't a stand alone program so kids make friends with others at their MS. It makes zero sense to have Immersion students be the only ones to go WMS--> Gunston. It's a non-starter.

Cue the posters saying that APS shouldn't consider the welfare of Immersion students because they "chose" the program and therefore deserve to be shat upon.

Not Gunston, Wakefield. My mistake.

but immersion in HS isn't wed to Wakefield. Isn't WHS the move overcrowded high school? So it would make sense to move Immersion to say W-L.

WL already has IB.

Wakefield has Capstone and Immersion. The SB has latitude to move where it wants, the Immersion IB conflict at TJ is a smokescreen they invented.

Capstone isn't a 'program.' Capstone is more of an elective than a program (AP Seminar and AP Research and students selecting and passing the exams for the same other AP classes everyone offers). YHS has it now (or will next year) too. WL could have it quite easily if they want.

ok but what's your point? we're talking about moving Immersion to another HS or MS. None of this means Immersion could not go to WL. Solves the overcrowding problem at WHS maybe without adjusting boundaries. I like this idea more and more.

Everyone keeps complaining about how big WL is/is getting; but sure, let's just put more option programs, and hence more students not zoned for it, there.
I'll support immersion to WL when IB moves from WL to WHS.

They added the seats to WL already, they're going to be filled with the same number of students. It doesn't matter whether they are zoned or option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Well if that is the argument then we should abolish sports or specials or electives or AP OR IB because APS just needs to focus on the basics and catch up.

Sounds good to me. Then we would at least have kids who are able to read and write.

you're an idiot

Opposite really. I removed my child from immersion because they were falling behind. APS wasn’t doing anything and COVID didn’t help. He’s now in 4th grade and thriving because of learning basics that he should have mastered back in K and first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

It helps the native spanish speakers who are the ones who have the achievement gaps. If people are speaking about achievement gaps, they are not talking about your white kids not thriving in immersion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

It helps the native spanish speakers who are the ones who have the achievement gaps. If people are speaking about achievement gaps, they are not talking about your white kids not thriving in immersion.

I posted above and stated that the gap had shrunk because non Hispanic kids performed worse — here is someone else advocating that point who doesn’t seem to understand what the word gap means.

It actually hurts Hispanic kids most likely, most immigrants rush to assimilate while this delays them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how many students need to be moved out of Gunston? More than 300? If you take the 300 in immersion and move them to WMS and then move kids into Hamm with boundaries is that not fixing the issue of too few kids at WMS and Hamm and too many at Gunston? You act as if the only ways to move students are the two maps/scenarios they put out to bolster their foregone decision. It’s not. Immersion out of Gunston to WMS, shift TJ/Swanson PUs to Hamm and I think we’re there. I’m not saying this is the best way, but it is a possibility and should be looked at in terms of how many buses it requires and how many neighborhood students would be moved/realigned. That hasn’t happened, and “because it’s bad for
Immersion” doesn’t cut it.

If a significant number of immersion students zoned for Gunston, Kenmore and TJ don't agree to move to WMS (highly likely), then you haven't moved 300 students. You are back in the same pickle with needing to move neighborhood boundaries to move more students north. You've harmed the program without accomplishing your objective of protecting a few Taylor students from being rezoned.

Why would Kenmore and TJ students refuse WMS, its about the same distance and in fact Kenmore to WMS is shorter than Kenmore to Gunston.

I have no idea how many immersion students originate from Gunston, that is not show in transfer report I saw.

Perhaps read the thread? Goodness. This has been well discussed.

The thread says WMS is too far north, yet WMS is CLOSER to Kenmore than the current Gunston commute. So there is no reason

I guess I am not sure why that matters? The program is moving from gunston to kennore or WMS? Gunston is closer to kenmore than it is to WMS. Gunston is also closer to TJ than WMS is to TJ. The bulk of immersion kids come from gunston, TJ and Kenmore. I think I read the vast majority are from gunston (but don't have that data).

Don’t lie. Kenmore is closer to WMS than Gunston, I just mapped it. TJ is closer to Gunston, but the route to WMS is on the faster north section of George Mason rather than Wash Blvd with way more traffic.

I am not lying. I never said kenmore was not closer. I said what the heck does that have to do with anything? Immersion families aren't 100% from Kenmore as I was attempting to point out when you ignored everything I said?

I didn't even mention Kenmore's distance to WMS.

Same poster here. I get it. You are talking about the hispanic families at kenmore and how it's better for them? Sure. What about the families that are zoned gunston and TJ? The idea behind moving to Kenmore is that it's in the middle for EVERYONE.

You're assuming immersion students are evenly distributed across the county. I'd like to see data on that because that assumption does not match where the families I know live.

I am assuming students that are in immersion are largely zoned or gunston, tj and Kenmore currently. Actually I am not assuming. I am basing it on the 2022-2023 aps transfer data! Gunston received 54 students from Hamm, 152 from TJ, 106 from Kenmore, 30 from Swanson, and 16 from WMS. Granted some of those are Montessori and it doesn't list students zoned for Gunston since they aren't transfers. But it's not hard to see the majority of MS immersion students are zoned for TJ, Kenmore and Gunston.

https://www.apsva.us/statistics/enrollment/

This is very strong rationale for moving immersion to Kenmore, since the bulk of students are from Kenmore and TJ. Kenmore's boundary goes a bit north of 50, more so than TJ's (?) And there are students from Swanson, which is north of Kenmore but seems closer than Hamm is to TJ (again, ?) But with the remaining 16 from Williamsburg, the scale tips to Kenmore for best location. It is interesting how few immersion students actually come from Gunston, since Claremont isn't that far away.

Would like to know how many of those WMS and Hamm students in particular are Montessori rather than immersion. I thought there were only about 300 total immersion students; and these numbers add up to over 250 without counting Gunston-zoned students. Still, more students closer to Gunston than to Williamsburg.

I understand the "space available" argument for moving immersion to WHS; but the strongest case for Kenmore is right here in these numbers.
1. Better serves the program
2. More centrally located for all participants
3. requires boundary shifts that ultimately would help fill Williamsburg and help keep it filled consistently, not relying on the gamble that enough immersion students would continue. Of course, maybe the winds would shift and more Key students would continue through MS instead of Claremont students; but then that puts the high school program at Wakefield in a more questionable future. I really doubt that many north Arlington students are going to send their kids to Wakefield. After all, that's why they're all living in north Arlington, right? And if the south Arlington families don't continue on at Williamsburg, they aren't going to jump back in in high school. Still, I guess APS could let the program become a north Arlington thing and move high school to YHS. If all those SA families are willing to keep going up to WMS and YHS for 7 years, maybe some demographic shifts will improve the diversity at YHS and WHS. My bet is on immersion at Kenmore/WHS.

So I don't have numbers from this year. BUT last year there were 253 immersion students and 44 Montessori students who weren't zoned for Gunston. If you include the Gunston zoned kids the Immersion number is 310 and Montessori is 70. I am also surprised it's not more Gunston kids, but the current population distribution is kind of off because some of this current set of kids had guaranteed admission based on their neighborhood. I know that at least one of the neighborhoods that used to have guaranteed admission was zoned for TJ (the Claremont neighborhood). Drew also had guaranteed admission and were zoned for Gunston but is a small population base compared to some other schools AND also had a lot of kids going into Montessori. So, in another couple years that population draw might seem a bit different.

But yes, there are many reasons to send the program to Kenmore. As I said my kid is in immersion. Ideally, I would prefer it stay there because we love it there. But Kenmore does make sense for the strength of the program. Which despite what many folks on here want to hear, should be a consideration.

If most immersion students come from Kenmore, and only 50 kids come from Gunston, WMS makes a lot of sense since it’s closer to Kenmore than Gunston is to Kenmore. And it has capacity.

1) The decision is NOT Gunston vs. WMS. The decision is KENMORE vs. WMS. Do you know what is closer to Kenmore? KENMORE.

2) The most kids do not come from Kenmore. They come from TJ zones.

But i am done with this. You are clearly just trying to be annoying.

1) The decision is where can immersion go with best outcome for immersion and neighborhood students. It could stay at Gunston and they just redraw boundaries, it could go to TJ if they get over IB Immersion overlap, etc. if Gunston was fine for years, then WMS is even closer.

2) reports I see more transfers from Kenmore, but maybe the latest numbers they swap? But TJ to WMS is equivalent to Kenmore to Gunston, so it really is a wash.

Logistically, WMS, Kenmore, Gunston, all work. It comes down to capacity utilization and impact on busing and boundaries. WMS should be investigated closely, as it will likely yield the fewest busing needs through the system, full stop.

WMS does not work because it does not feed to Gunston. Immersion isn't a stand alone program so kids make friends with others at their MS. It makes zero sense to have Immersion students be the only ones to go WMS--> Gunston. It's a non-starter.

Cue the posters saying that APS shouldn't consider the welfare of Immersion students because they "chose" the program and therefore deserve to be shat upon.

Not Gunston, Wakefield. My mistake.

but immersion in HS isn't wed to Wakefield. Isn't WHS the move overcrowded high school? So it would make sense to move Immersion to say W-L.

WL already has IB.

Wakefield has Capstone and Immersion. The SB has latitude to move where it wants, the Immersion IB conflict at TJ is a smokescreen they invented.

Capstone isn't a 'program.' Capstone is more of an elective than a program (AP Seminar and AP Research and students selecting and passing the exams for the same other AP classes everyone offers). YHS has it now (or will next year) too. WL could have it quite easily if they want.

ok but what's your point? we're talking about moving Immersion to another HS or MS. None of this means Immersion could not go to WL. Solves the overcrowding problem at WHS maybe without adjusting boundaries. I like this idea more and more.

Everyone keeps complaining about how big WL is/is getting; but sure, let's just put more option programs, and hence more students not zoned for it, there.
I'll support immersion to WL when IB moves from WL to WHS.

They just finished an auxiliary building at W-L so yes they are going to fill it up. Do you think it should sit empty while Wakefield stays overcrowded? What difference does it make to your kids if the new kids are rezoned there or immersion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

It helps the native spanish speakers who are the ones who have the achievement gaps. If people are speaking about achievement gaps, they are not talking about your white kids not thriving in immersion.

I posted above and stated that the gap had shrunk because non Hispanic kids performed worse — here is someone else advocating that point who doesn’t seem to understand what the word gap means.

It actually hurts Hispanic kids most likely, most immigrants rush to assimilate while this delays them.

It doesn't sound like you've read anything about how immersion works or how it helps kids who are fluent speakers of the target language (which in APS is Spanish).

[Anonymous]

The numbers simply don't show that immersion is failing English speaking kids. I mean we can throw out anecdotes all you wan. I have two kids in Immersion and both of them were identified as gifted and score near 600 on every SOL they take. Heck my youngest is 4 grade levels ahead in math. And we don't do anything special to supplement and are an English speaking household. My kids are also now at least conversationally fluent in Spanish. But anecdotes don't matter. You can get plenty of stories in here how neighborhood schools or other choice school kids are struggling and switching schools fixed it. Some schools just aren't a fix for kids.

But the test scores at Clarmeont for white kids (only way i can theoretically look at data for English speaking kids easily) are higher than Abingdon, Alice fleet, Oakridge and Drew (I stopped looking at this pt) and the scores are on par with schools like Nottingham. English speaking kids as a whole aren't being failed at Claremont, the data simply does not support that. But I firmly believe immersion isn't for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how many students need to be moved out of Gunston? More than 300? If you take the 300 in immersion and move them to WMS and then move kids into Hamm with boundaries is that not fixing the issue of too few kids at WMS and Hamm and too many at Gunston? You act as if the only ways to move students are the two maps/scenarios they put out to bolster their foregone decision. It’s not. Immersion out of Gunston to WMS, shift TJ/Swanson PUs to Hamm and I think we’re there. I’m not saying this is the best way, but it is a possibility and should be looked at in terms of how many buses it requires and how many neighborhood students would be moved/realigned. That hasn’t happened, and “because it’s bad for
Immersion” doesn’t cut it.

If a significant number of immersion students zoned for Gunston, Kenmore and TJ don't agree to move to WMS (highly likely), then you haven't moved 300 students. You are back in the same pickle with needing to move neighborhood boundaries to move more students north. You've harmed the program without accomplishing your objective of protecting a few Taylor students from being rezoned.

Why would Kenmore and TJ students refuse WMS, its about the same distance and in fact Kenmore to WMS is shorter than Kenmore to Gunston.

I have no idea how many immersion students originate from Gunston, that is not show in transfer report I saw.

Perhaps read the thread? Goodness. This has been well discussed.

The thread says WMS is too far north, yet WMS is CLOSER to Kenmore than the current Gunston commute. So there is no reason

I guess I am not sure why that matters? The program is moving from gunston to kennore or WMS? Gunston is closer to kenmore than it is to WMS. Gunston is also closer to TJ than WMS is to TJ. The bulk of immersion kids come from gunston, TJ and Kenmore. I think I read the vast majority are from gunston (but don't have that data).

Don’t lie. Kenmore is closer to WMS than Gunston, I just mapped it. TJ is closer to Gunston, but the route to WMS is on the faster north section of George Mason rather than Wash Blvd with way more traffic.

I am not lying. I never said kenmore was not closer. I said what the heck does that have to do with anything? Immersion families aren't 100% from Kenmore as I was attempting to point out when you ignored everything I said?

I didn't even mention Kenmore's distance to WMS.

Same poster here. I get it. You are talking about the hispanic families at kenmore and how it's better for them? Sure. What about the families that are zoned gunston and TJ? The idea behind moving to Kenmore is that it's in the middle for EVERYONE.

You're assuming immersion students are evenly distributed across the county. I'd like to see data on that because that assumption does not match where the families I know live.

I am assuming students that are in immersion are largely zoned or gunston, tj and Kenmore currently. Actually I am not assuming. I am basing it on the 2022-2023 aps transfer data! Gunston received 54 students from Hamm, 152 from TJ, 106 from Kenmore, 30 from Swanson, and 16 from WMS. Granted some of those are Montessori and it doesn't list students zoned for Gunston since they aren't transfers. But it's not hard to see the majority of MS immersion students are zoned for TJ, Kenmore and Gunston.

https://www.apsva.us/statistics/enrollment/

This is very strong rationale for moving immersion to Kenmore, since the bulk of students are from Kenmore and TJ. Kenmore's boundary goes a bit north of 50, more so than TJ's (?) And there are students from Swanson, which is north of Kenmore but seems closer than Hamm is to TJ (again, ?) But with the remaining 16 from Williamsburg, the scale tips to Kenmore for best location. It is interesting how few immersion students actually come from Gunston, since Claremont isn't that far away.

Would like to know how many of those WMS and Hamm students in particular are Montessori rather than immersion. I thought there were only about 300 total immersion students; and these numbers add up to over 250 without counting Gunston-zoned students. Still, more students closer to Gunston than to Williamsburg.

I understand the "space available" argument for moving immersion to WHS; but the strongest case for Kenmore is right here in these numbers.
1. Better serves the program
2. More centrally located for all participants
3. requires boundary shifts that ultimately would help fill Williamsburg and help keep it filled consistently, not relying on the gamble that enough immersion students would continue. Of course, maybe the winds would shift and more Key students would continue through MS instead of Claremont students; but then that puts the high school program at Wakefield in a more questionable future. I really doubt that many north Arlington students are going to send their kids to Wakefield. After all, that's why they're all living in north Arlington, right? And if the south Arlington families don't continue on at Williamsburg, they aren't going to jump back in in high school. Still, I guess APS could let the program become a north Arlington thing and move high school to YHS. If all those SA families are willing to keep going up to WMS and YHS for 7 years, maybe some demographic shifts will improve the diversity at YHS and WHS. My bet is on immersion at Kenmore/WHS.

So I don't have numbers from this year. BUT last year there were 253 immersion students and 44 Montessori students who weren't zoned for Gunston. If you include the Gunston zoned kids the Immersion number is 310 and Montessori is 70. I am also surprised it's not more Gunston kids, but the current population distribution is kind of off because some of this current set of kids had guaranteed admission based on their neighborhood. I know that at least one of the neighborhoods that used to have guaranteed admission was zoned for TJ (the Claremont neighborhood). Drew also had guaranteed admission and were zoned for Gunston but is a small population base compared to some other schools AND also had a lot of kids going into Montessori. So, in another couple years that population draw might seem a bit different.

But yes, there are many reasons to send the program to Kenmore. As I said my kid is in immersion. Ideally, I would prefer it stay there because we love it there. But Kenmore does make sense for the strength of the program. Which despite what many folks on here want to hear, should be a consideration.

If most immersion students come from Kenmore, and only 50 kids come from Gunston, WMS makes a lot of sense since it’s closer to Kenmore than Gunston is to Kenmore. And it has capacity.

1) The decision is NOT Gunston vs. WMS. The decision is KENMORE vs. WMS. Do you know what is closer to Kenmore? KENMORE.

2) The most kids do not come from Kenmore. They come from TJ zones.

But i am done with this. You are clearly just trying to be annoying.

1) The decision is where can immersion go with best outcome for immersion and neighborhood students. It could stay at Gunston and they just redraw boundaries, it could go to TJ if they get over IB Immersion overlap, etc. if Gunston was fine for years, then WMS is even closer.

2) reports I see more transfers from Kenmore, but maybe the latest numbers they swap? But TJ to WMS is equivalent to Kenmore to Gunston, so it really is a wash.

Logistically, WMS, Kenmore, Gunston, all work. It comes down to capacity utilization and impact on busing and boundaries. WMS should be investigated closely, as it will likely yield the fewest busing needs through the system, full stop.

WMS does not work because it does not feed to Gunston. Immersion isn't a stand alone program so kids make friends with others at their MS. It makes zero sense to have Immersion students be the only ones to go WMS--> Gunston. It's a non-starter.

Cue the posters saying that APS shouldn't consider the welfare of Immersion students because they "chose" the program and therefore deserve to be shat upon.

Not Gunston, Wakefield. My mistake.

but immersion in HS isn't wed to Wakefield. Isn't WHS the move overcrowded high school? So it would make sense to move Immersion to say W-L.

WL already has IB.

Wakefield has Capstone and Immersion. The SB has latitude to move where it wants, the Immersion IB conflict at TJ is a smokescreen they invented.

Capstone isn't a 'program.' Capstone is more of an elective than a program (AP Seminar and AP Research and students selecting and passing the exams for the same other AP classes everyone offers). YHS has it now (or will next year) too. WL could have it quite easily if they want.

ok but what's your point? we're talking about moving Immersion to another HS or MS. None of this means Immersion could not go to WL. Solves the overcrowding problem at WHS maybe without adjusting boundaries. I like this idea more and more.

Everyone keeps complaining about how big WL is/is getting; but sure, let's just put more option programs, and hence more students not zoned for it, there.
I'll support immersion to WL when IB moves from WL to WHS.

They just finished an auxiliary building at W-L so yes they are going to fill it up. Do you think it should sit empty while Wakefield stays overcrowded? What difference does it make to your kids if the new kids are rezoned there or immersion?

No, and that's not what APS' plan for those seats has been, either.

Those seats are easily filled by existing students at WL and redistricted students from YHS and/or WHS; as well as by expanding access to the IB program. You aren't going to expand immersion; so I think if it's possible to do so, it makes more sense to exercise more control over enrollment via the boundary changes while expanding some option opportunities- rather than requiring one school to administer three programs and not increase access to one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The numbers simply don't show that immersion is failing English speaking kids. I mean we can throw out anecdotes all you wan. I have two kids in Immersion and both of them were identified as gifted and score near 600 on every SOL they take. Heck my youngest is 4 grade levels ahead in math. And we don't do anything special to supplement and are an English speaking household. My kids are also now at least conversationally fluent in Spanish. But anecdotes don't matter. You can get plenty of stories in here how neighborhood schools or other choice school kids are struggling and switching schools fixed it. Some schools just aren't a fix for kids.

But the test scores at Clarmeont for white kids (only way i can theoretically look at data for English speaking kids easily) are higher than Abingdon, Alice fleet, Oakridge and Drew (I stopped looking at this pt) and the scores are on par with schools like Nottingham. English speaking kids as a whole aren't being failed at Claremont, the data simply does not support that. But I firmly believe immersion isn't for everyone.

As a Claremont family (english speaking), I underscore this. The data simply does not track with the claims on this board when it comes to achievement. The data overall for immersion programs shows that cohorts can lag but by middle/high school, they score better than comparable peers on standardized tests (to the extent that matters to people - which appraently, is a lot). People love to point to "well my kid..." or "i know a family..." The same can be said for non-immersion programs. Some kids need different things and thrive in different environments. But it's simply not the case that this is an indictment on the program itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

It helps the native spanish speakers who are the ones who have the achievement gaps. If people are speaking about achievement gaps, they are not talking about your white kids not thriving in immersion.

That is not accurate and my kids are not white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are depressing. Most developed countries actually teach multiple languages in schools from very early on. APS offers a popular, successful program (with strong academic outcomes for native Spanish & English speakers)… and you want to get rid of it. We should be expanding it instead.

Not when kids aren’t learning basics they need in math and reading. APS needs to focus on that before they start to add languages in that not everyone wants because we are trying to catch our kids up from the crap job APS has done.

Dual language immersion programs (like what APS does) actually help close achievement gaps. I didn't know this until I started learning about the APS program so I won't try to explain it, but you'll find plenty of info if you google something like "immersion language achievement gap."

Not PP but we are another APS family who left immersion … it wasn’t working out so well for us. We were at Claremont and after changing schools I was floored how far behind my two daughters were with peers at the same grade level. Maybe immersion just wasn’t for us but there was a lot they weren’t getting that I realized is more important than having a second language. Especially considering their native language (English) wasn’t in a great spot either. Finally, after more tutoring, a year in more of a traditional environment, everyone is thriving.

It helps the native spanish speakers who are the ones who have the achievement gaps. If people are speaking about achievement gaps, they are not talking about your white kids not thriving in immersion.

That is not accurate and my kids are not white.

I don't think anyone would state that immersion is a good choice for all students. That's why it's an option program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The numbers simply don't show that immersion is failing English speaking kids. I mean we can throw out anecdotes all you wan. I have two kids in Immersion and both of them were identified as gifted and score near 600 on every SOL they take. Heck my youngest is 4 grade levels ahead in math. And we don't do anything special to supplement and are an English speaking household. My kids are also now at least conversationally fluent in Spanish. But anecdotes don't matter. You can get plenty of stories in here how neighborhood schools or other choice school kids are struggling and switching schools fixed it. Some schools just aren't a fix for kids.

But the test scores at Clarmeont for white kids (only way i can theoretically look at data for English speaking kids easily) are higher than Abingdon, Alice fleet, Oakridge and Drew (I stopped looking at this pt) and the scores are on par with schools like Nottingham. English speaking kids as a whole aren't being failed at Claremont, the data simply does not support that. But I firmly believe immersion isn't for everyone.

As a Claremont family (english speaking), I underscore this. The data simply does not track with the claims on this board when it comes to achievement. The data overall for immersion programs shows that cohorts can lag but by middle/high school, they score better than comparable peers on standardized tests (to the extent that matters to people - which appraently, is a lot). People love to point to "well my kid..." or "i know a family..." The same can be said for non-immersion programs. Some kids need different things and thrive in different environments. But it's simply not the case that this is an indictment on the program itself.

you have to acknowledge that the 'cohort' has shrunk considerably by middle/high school. The kids who were not making it in immersion drop out throughout elementary school and definitely before middle school. So you are left with the kids who are making it. This really helps those statistics that show that kids do comparable to non-immersion peers in middle school/ high school. I don't mean this as an overall indictment of the program, obviously it serves many families well. But I see absolutely no reason to expand it. It fails more people than it serves. We are another immersion dropout- who tried really hard to make it work, but my kids had significant learning differences, and immersion was a terrible fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The numbers simply don't show that immersion is failing English speaking kids. I mean we can throw out anecdotes all you wan. I have two kids in Immersion and both of them were identified as gifted and score near 600 on every SOL they take. Heck my youngest is 4 grade levels ahead in math. And we don't do anything special to supplement and are an English speaking household. My kids are also now at least conversationally fluent in Spanish. But anecdotes don't matter. You can get plenty of stories in here how neighborhood schools or other choice school kids are struggling and switching schools fixed it. Some schools just aren't a fix for kids.

But the test scores at Clarmeont for white kids (only way i can theoretically look at data for English speaking kids easily) are higher than Abingdon, Alice fleet, Oakridge and Drew (I stopped looking at this pt) and the scores are on par with schools like Nottingham. English speaking kids as a whole aren't being failed at Claremont, the data simply does not support that. But I firmly believe immersion isn't for everyone.

As a Claremont family (english speaking), I underscore this. The data simply does not track with the claims on this board when it comes to achievement. The data overall for immersion programs shows that cohorts can lag but by middle/high school, they score better than comparable peers on standardized tests (to the extent that matters to people - which appraently, is a lot). People love to point to "well my kid..." or "i know a family..." The same can be said for non-immersion programs. Some kids need different things and thrive in different environments. But it's simply not the case that this is an indictment on the program itself.

you have to acknowledge that the 'cohort' has shrunk considerably by middle/high school. The kids who were not making it in immersion drop out throughout elementary school and definitely before middle school. So you are left with the kids who are making it. This really helps those statistics that show that kids do comparable to non-immersion peers in middle school/ high school. I don't mean this as an overall indictment of the program, obviously it serves many families well. But I see absolutely no reason to expand it. It fails more people than it serves. We are another immersion dropout- who tried really hard to make it work, but my kids had significant learning differences, and immersion was a terrible fit.

By middle and high school kids have lots of competing priorities. Some will want to focus on STEM or fine arts. Others will want to focus on sports, IB/AP/dual credit or other electives. I don't think a kid should have to stick with immersion forever just because they started it in kindergarten. Interests change and they can still continue Spanish outside of school or in college (e.g., study abroad) and be the better for having had significant early exposure. I don't think the program fails just because kids don't stay in the program all the way through high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The numbers simply don't show that immersion is failing English speaking kids. I mean we can throw out anecdotes all you wan. I have two kids in Immersion and both of them were identified as gifted and score near 600 on every SOL they take. Heck my youngest is 4 grade levels ahead in math. And we don't do anything special to supplement and are an English speaking household. My kids are also now at least conversationally fluent in Spanish. But anecdotes don't matter. You can get plenty of stories in here how neighborhood schools or other choice school kids are struggling and switching schools fixed it. Some schools just aren't a fix for kids.

But the test scores at Clarmeont for white kids (only way i can theoretically look at data for English speaking kids easily) are higher than Abingdon, Alice fleet, Oakridge and Drew (I stopped looking at this pt) and the scores are on par with schools like Nottingham. English speaking kids as a whole aren't being failed at Claremont, the data simply does not support that. But I firmly believe immersion isn't for everyone.

As a Claremont family (english speaking), I underscore this. The data simply does not track with the claims on this board when it comes to achievement. The data overall for immersion programs shows that cohorts can lag but by middle/high school, they score better than comparable peers on standardized tests (to the extent that matters to people - which appraently, is a lot). People love to point to "well my kid..." or "i know a family..." The same can be said for non-immersion programs. Some kids need different things and thrive in different environments. But it's simply not the case that this is an indictment on the program itself.

you have to acknowledge that the 'cohort' has shrunk considerably by middle/high school. The kids who were not making it in immersion drop out throughout elementary school and definitely before middle school. So you are left with the kids who are making it. This really helps those statistics that show that kids do comparable to non-immersion peers in middle school/ high school. I don't mean this as an overall indictment of the program, obviously it serves many families well. But I see absolutely no reason to expand it. It fails more people than it serves. We are another immersion dropout- who tried really hard to make it work, but my kids had significant learning differences, and immersion was a terrible fit.

"not making it" is not the main reason families don't continue into ms or then into hs.