Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They still giving lip service to moving immersion to meet the needs of inane vision board. So disrupt boundaries and turn hundreds of walkers to bus riders SOLELY to benefit Immersion? That should be DOA, and not given even the pixels on the page.

My kid is not in immersion but I've always supported it b/c I assumed that native speakers wanted it. With only 300 in MS, I'm not quite sure that's ture any more and no, we should not upend MS boarders b/c of them.

Native speaker families, in particular those receiving EL services at neighborhood schools zoned to Kenmore really don’t want immersion in the same numbers as APS would like, it’s not a matter of not having access. They just want their kids to learn English and as quickly as possible and don’t see a benefit to Spanish immersion. APS would like more of those kids in immersion because long-term educational outcomes appear better for native speakers who go through immersion. But it’s not clear to me whether or not they have data that can break out family income or educational levels, to ascertain whether it’s correlated to higher income and education in the families who choose immersion and not necessarily due to the model of immersion itself. What is clear to me is they need to do a better job of marketing the program to EL families prior to K. Moving the MS program might encourage more Key families to stay in, but at the same time, if you move the program to Kenmore you are making that school less diverse by concentrating Hispanic kids, possibly encouraging Hispanic kids away from Swanson and Hamm, and missing an opportunity to encourage diversity at N Arlington middle schools. It’s complicated and they need to weigh all of these aspects before making such a change.

The people I know who choose immersion are moderately, wealthy, usually south American, married to a white person. They want their kids to maintain Spanish but it’s a little bit harder with a spouse who doesn’t exclusively speak it at home so they choose immersion.

The kids I know with this profile are in the program as native English speakers, not native Spanish. Those are homes where English is the predominant language because both parents aren't fluent in Spanish.

Yes these parents don't chose native Spanish speaking because then kids have to attend ELL classes.

Not true in my experience. They just assess if you are fluent in English as well.

Ah because I know folks that picked Spanish speakers and it was an uphill battle to get them out of EL (even with kids being fluent in english). Different schools (or times) I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They still giving lip service to moving immersion to meet the needs of inane vision board. So disrupt boundaries and turn hundreds of walkers to bus riders SOLELY to benefit Immersion? That should be DOA, and not given even the pixels on the page.

My kid is not in immersion but I've always supported it b/c I assumed that native speakers wanted it. With only 300 in MS, I'm not quite sure that's ture any more and no, we should not upend MS boarders b/c of them.

Native speaker families, in particular those receiving EL services at neighborhood schools zoned to Kenmore really don’t want immersion in the same numbers as APS would like, it’s not a matter of not having access. They just want their kids to learn English and as quickly as possible and don’t see a benefit to Spanish immersion. APS would like more of those kids in immersion because long-term educational outcomes appear better for native speakers who go through immersion. But it’s not clear to me whether or not they have data that can break out family income or educational levels, to ascertain whether it’s correlated to higher income and education in the families who choose immersion and not necessarily due to the model of immersion itself. What is clear to me is they need to do a better job of marketing the program to EL families prior to K. Moving the MS program might encourage more Key families to stay in, but at the same time, if you move the program to Kenmore you are making that school less diverse by concentrating Hispanic kids, possibly encouraging Hispanic kids away from Swanson and Hamm, and missing an opportunity to encourage diversity at N Arlington middle schools. It’s complicated and they need to weigh all of these aspects before making such a change.

The people I know who choose immersion are moderately, wealthy, usually south American, married to a white person. They want their kids to maintain Spanish but it’s a little bit harder with a spouse who doesn’t exclusively speak it at home so they choose immersion.

The kids I know with this profile are in the program as native English speakers, not native Spanish. Those are homes where English is the predominant language because both parents aren't fluent in Spanish.

Yes these parents don't chose native Spanish speaking because then kids have to attend ELL classes.

Not true in my experience. They just assess if you are fluent in English as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They still giving lip service to moving immersion to meet the needs of inane vision board. So disrupt boundaries and turn hundreds of walkers to bus riders SOLELY to benefit Immersion? That should be DOA, and not given even the pixels on the page.

My kid is not in immersion but I've always supported it b/c I assumed that native speakers wanted it. With only 300 in MS, I'm not quite sure that's ture any more and no, we should not upend MS boarders b/c of them.

Native speaker families, in particular those receiving EL services at neighborhood schools zoned to Kenmore really don’t want immersion in the same numbers as APS would like, it’s not a matter of not having access. They just want their kids to learn English and as quickly as possible and don’t see a benefit to Spanish immersion. APS would like more of those kids in immersion because long-term educational outcomes appear better for native speakers who go through immersion. But it’s not clear to me whether or not they have data that can break out family income or educational levels, to ascertain whether it’s correlated to higher income and education in the families who choose immersion and not necessarily due to the model of immersion itself. What is clear to me is they need to do a better job of marketing the program to EL families prior to K. Moving the MS program might encourage more Key families to stay in, but at the same time, if you move the program to Kenmore you are making that school less diverse by concentrating Hispanic kids, possibly encouraging Hispanic kids away from Swanson and Hamm, and missing an opportunity to encourage diversity at N Arlington middle schools. It’s complicated and they need to weigh all of these aspects before making such a change.

The people I know who choose immersion are moderately, wealthy, usually south American, married to a white person. They want their kids to maintain Spanish but it’s a little bit harder with a spouse who doesn’t exclusively speak it at home so they choose immersion.

Honest question. Do you hang out in a circle where you would know a lot of low income likely immigrant families who only speak Spanish and would you be able to have conversations with them about their choice to attend or not attend immersion.

Anyway, going to an immersion school I can say there are certainly the a fair share of the folks listed above but there also lots of families who are the later. I think a lot of the families who only speak Spanish chose immersion because it's a more welcoming environment. My husband grew up in a house that only spoke Spanish. His mom was beat by her teachers for speaking Spanish. She eventually devoted her life to Bilingual education so she could help children like her feels welcome. When my husband and I had kids he had a strong desire to send the kids to immersion.

He loves immersion because it is accepting of his culture. He feels welcomed more so than he does in all white english spaces.

He also loves it because it gives English speaking families and opportunity to understand the hardships that come when you can speak or understand the language spoken. There have been many times in my years volunteering in immersion where I (English speaking) have to communicate and work with families who only speak Spanish. I value those times and the opportunity it gave me to figure out how to communicate and work together through language barriers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They still giving lip service to moving immersion to meet the needs of inane vision board. So disrupt boundaries and turn hundreds of walkers to bus riders SOLELY to benefit Immersion? That should be DOA, and not given even the pixels on the page.

My kid is not in immersion but I've always supported it b/c I assumed that native speakers wanted it. With only 300 in MS, I'm not quite sure that's ture any more and no, we should not upend MS boarders b/c of them.

Native speaker families, in particular those receiving EL services at neighborhood schools zoned to Kenmore really don’t want immersion in the same numbers as APS would like, it’s not a matter of not having access. They just want their kids to learn English and as quickly as possible and don’t see a benefit to Spanish immersion. APS would like more of those kids in immersion because long-term educational outcomes appear better for native speakers who go through immersion. But it’s not clear to me whether or not they have data that can break out family income or educational levels, to ascertain whether it’s correlated to higher income and education in the families who choose immersion and not necessarily due to the model of immersion itself. What is clear to me is they need to do a better job of marketing the program to EL families prior to K. Moving the MS program might encourage more Key families to stay in, but at the same time, if you move the program to Kenmore you are making that school less diverse by concentrating Hispanic kids, possibly encouraging Hispanic kids away from Swanson and Hamm, and missing an opportunity to encourage diversity at N Arlington middle schools. It’s complicated and they need to weigh all of these aspects before making such a change.

The people I know who choose immersion are moderately, wealthy, usually south American, married to a white person. They want their kids to maintain Spanish but it’s a little bit harder with a spouse who doesn’t exclusively speak it at home so they choose immersion.

The kids I know with this profile are in the program as native English speakers, not native Spanish. Those are homes where English is the predominant language because both parents aren't fluent in Spanish.

Yes these parents don't chose native Spanish speaking because then kids have to attend ELL classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They still giving lip service to moving immersion to meet the needs of inane vision board. So disrupt boundaries and turn hundreds of walkers to bus riders SOLELY to benefit Immersion? That should be DOA, and not given even the pixels on the page.

My kid is not in immersion but I've always supported it b/c I assumed that native speakers wanted it. With only 300 in MS, I'm not quite sure that's ture any more and no, we should not upend MS boarders b/c of them.

Native speaker families, in particular those receiving EL services at neighborhood schools zoned to Kenmore really don’t want immersion in the same numbers as APS would like, it’s not a matter of not having access. They just want their kids to learn English and as quickly as possible and don’t see a benefit to Spanish immersion. APS would like more of those kids in immersion because long-term educational outcomes appear better for native speakers who go through immersion. But it’s not clear to me whether or not they have data that can break out family income or educational levels, to ascertain whether it’s correlated to higher income and education in the families who choose immersion and not necessarily due to the model of immersion itself. What is clear to me is they need to do a better job of marketing the program to EL families prior to K. Moving the MS program might encourage more Key families to stay in, but at the same time, if you move the program to Kenmore you are making that school less diverse by concentrating Hispanic kids, possibly encouraging Hispanic kids away from Swanson and Hamm, and missing an opportunity to encourage diversity at N Arlington middle schools. It’s complicated and they need to weigh all of these aspects before making such a change.

The people I know who choose immersion are moderately, wealthy, usually south American, married to a white person. They want their kids to maintain Spanish but it’s a little bit harder with a spouse who doesn’t exclusively speak it at home so they choose immersion.

The kids I know with this profile are in the program as native English speakers, not native Spanish. Those are homes where English is the predominant language because both parents aren't fluent in Spanish.