Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see not sending, say, a child with special needs or a learning disability to an immersion school (of any language). It would be sensory overload. But absent that, the gift of learning a second language is compelling.

It is compelling, but immersion is not needed to learn languages.
I’ve learned three languages, and none of them via immersion.

Correct me if I’m wrong; there have been more people opting OUT of immersion in the Key zone than in.
This is how we got to the odd swapped attendance zone scenario.
With ASFS filled with kids from the Key attendance zone.

But how much of that is people in love with the concept of ASFS moving to the Key zone because they want their kids to go to ASFS? (We live in the Key zone and have neighbors who did this. No idea if they're more or less common than people moving to Nottingham or whereever because they love Nottingham.)

If people in LV couldn't go to ASFS but had to be bused to Taylor, I wonder how many of them would discover an interest in Spanish immersion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see not sending, say, a child with special needs or a learning disability to an immersion school (of any language). It would be sensory overload. But absent that, the gift of learning a second language is compelling.

It is compelling, but immersion is not needed to learn languages.
I’ve learned three languages, and none of them via immersion.

Correct me if I’m wrong; there have been more people opting OUT of immersion in the Key zone than in.
This is how we got to the odd swapped attendance zone scenario.
With ASFS filled with kids from the Key attendance zone.

I think you're correct. There's enough people opting out of Key immersion in order to fill ASFS to capacity. There are very few transfers to ASFS outside of the Key boundary

Anonymous wrote:I could see not sending, say, a child with special needs or a learning disability to an immersion school (of any language). It would be sensory overload. But absent that, the gift of learning a second language is compelling.

It is compelling, but immersion is not needed to learn languages.
I’ve learned three languages, and none of them via immersion.

Correct me if I’m wrong; there have been more people opting OUT of immersion in the Key zone than in.
This is how we got to the odd swapped attendance zone scenario.
With ASFS filled with kids from the Key attendance zone.

I could see not sending, say, a child with special needs or a learning disability to an immersion school (of any language). It would be sensory overload. But absent that, the gift of learning a second language is compelling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We considered Key and liked the principal a lot and the concept of immersion. It wasn’t the right choice for our child, but it’s a great program and a great asset for APS.

But yet you declined it.

And...??

That speaks volumes.

A decision for an individual child? (which had nothing to do with what we thought about the principal or immersion) How exactly does that "speak volumes"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We considered Key and liked the principal a lot and the concept of immersion. It wasn’t the right choice for our child, but it’s a great program and a great asset for APS.

But yet you declined it.

And...??

That speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because the principal was awful.

She was actually terrific, overall, I thought. (I had two kids go through Key). She had been there a long time, however, and I think the school will benefit by an injection of new leadership next year.

And while I agree tha Immersion may not be everyone's cup of tea, I think calling it a "niche program" is a little too dismissive. The opportunity to learn a language as a young child is a unique opportunity that can never be replicated. I think that is why many families choose immersion. Its not good for some kids (which is why APS has never forced anyone to go through the immersion program), but I think it is very good for most kids.

+1,000.

I will say this for Spanish immersion:
It's very convenient for Spanish speaking families, especially those that have Spanish roots, but are NOT speaking mainly Spanish at home anymore (more families than you think fall into this category, and it is useless for the school board to guess where they might choose to live).
I only WISH they would offer my parents' language as immersion, how wonderful would that be to keep the language alive for my kids, and how happy the grandparents would be!
For English speaking families my opinion is that being bilingual is fantastic, but you absolutely can be fluent in Spanish as an adult without ever having gone to an immersion school (and without FLES).
Spanish is THE easiest language to learn for native English speakers or speakers of other roman languages; pronunciation and grammar are so clear, grammar follows clear rules...
I used to be fluent in Spanish, and only started learning it at age 18. You will loose the mastery of any language that you don't use very regularly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We considered Key and liked the principal a lot and the concept of immersion. It wasn’t the right choice for our child, but it’s a great program and a great asset for APS.

But yet you declined it.

And...??

Anonymous wrote:We considered Key and liked the principal a lot and the concept of immersion. It wasn’t the right choice for our child, but it’s a great program and a great asset for APS.

But yet you declined it.