Language instruction at CMI in the upper elementary grades

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a charter school advocate, I'd be against this.

There are already too many "preferences" as it is. I sense frustrations with so many families trying to get into schools.

I'm a charter advocate and I'd be for it. Schools that have designed a curriculum, services, and supports for SN students should be allowed to use their expensive high-needs classrooms to actually serve them.

You wouldn't put snowflake in a high needs room anyway, so how ugly do you need to be to want those seats to be empty?

Do you understand how the services work in DC?

Yes, I do, all too well. NT children don't end up in Level 4 classrooms. But children who need those classrooms don't get to bunnyhop into them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cmi is Tier 1

That's not how the DCPCSB lists them on their website. They're "unrated".

CMI feels like Tier 1.

Lol. Other than the results...?

Now that is funny. PP means there are enough to white kids there that it should be tier 1. Foul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cmi is Tier 1

That's not how the DCPCSB lists them on their website. They're "unrated".

CMI feels like Tier 1.

Lol. Other than the results...?

Now that is funny. PP means there are enough to white kids there that it should be tier 1. Foul.

SOL? Sad out loud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a charter school advocate, I'd be against this.

There are already too many "preferences" as it is. I sense frustrations with so many families trying to get into schools.

I'm a charter advocate and I'd be for it. Schools that have designed a curriculum, services, and supports for SN students should be allowed to use their expensive high-needs classrooms to actually serve them.

You wouldn't put snowflake in a high needs room anyway, so how ugly do you need to be to want those seats to be empty?

Do you understand how the services work in DC?

Yes, I do, all too well. NT children don't end up in Level 4 classrooms. But children who need those classrooms don't get to bunnyhop into them.

So NT kids aren't in them and SN kids aren't in them....

[Anonymous]

Since this post asks about languages at CMI, and I am a CMI parent, I will tell you that Spanish is 2x week and Chinese is 2 week for elementary kids. I have seen less progression in Spanish then I had hoped for in 2 years, and more progression in Chinese than I would have imagined. There is one full-time teacher for each language, with each teacher being a native speaker (Spanish from Spain and Chinese from China). The Chinese program has received an Asia Society grant. The Spanish program is offered at the beginning level with no viable plan/resources at this point to offer differentiated level instruction to more advanced and Spanish-fluent (Latino) students. The language philosophy for middle school is still up for debate, but the plan is to continue with both languages in the same fashion unless parents and students become more vocal in insisting that there be a choice or concentration in one language or another.

School administration will not be dissuaded from their goal of offering exposure, not fluency or immersion, so don't go to CMI expecting anything different.

As an earlier poster pointed out, IB High School programs require two language exposure, and the goal of the middle school language program at CMI will be to groom students for IB High School program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since this post asks about languages at CMI, and I am a CMI parent, I will tell you that Spanish is 2x week and Chinese is 2 week for elementary kids. I have seen less progression in Spanish then I had hoped for in 2 years, and more progression in Chinese than I would have imagined. There is one full-time teacher for each language, with each teacher being a native speaker (Spanish from Spain and Chinese from China). The Chinese program has received an Asia Society grant. The Spanish program is offered at the beginning level with no viable plan/resources at this point to offer differentiated level instruction to more advanced and Spanish-fluent (Latino) students. The language philosophy for middle school is still up for debate, but the plan is to continue with both languages in the same fashion unless parents and students become more vocal in insisting that there be a choice or concentration in one language or another.

School administration will not be dissuaded from their goal of offering exposure, not fluency or immersion, so don't go to CMI expecting anything different.

As an earlier poster pointed out, IB High School programs require two language exposure, and the goal of the middle school language program at CMI will be to groom students for IB High School program.

IB Programs require two language exposure ONE BEING NATIVE LANGUAGE.
Just want to clarify.
English dominant (HL) and Spanish/Mandarin/French/etc (SL) satisfies this requirement.

This is the first time I've heard the goal of CMI is to send children on to IB high school. What's the leap from IPC to IB? What are the differentiators?

[Anonymous]

I am the previous poster. Forgot to add that there are plans to add part-time Chinese and Spanish instructors next year for the new middle school. Also there is discussion about testing and placing upper elementary and middle school children to better focus on progression/advancing language goals for these grades. Needless to say, there are a lot of needs for the new middle school with developing math and science program probably being the top priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IB Programs require two language exposure ONE BEING NATIVE LANGUAGE.
Just want to clarify.
English dominant (HL) and Spanish/Mandarin/French/etc (SL) satisfies this requirement.

This is the first time I've heard the goal of CMI is to send children on to IB high school. What's the leap from IPC to IB? What are the differentiators?

Thanks for the clarification on language.

IPC is the elementary school program/IMYC is for middle school. http://www.greatlearning.com/imyc/

With similar goals to grow international minded, critical thinkers - its not a leap to think that successful graduates of either an IB or IMYC middle school program would go on to an IB curriculum (which technically starts in 10th grade, no?) I think most parents at CMI who are interested in the middle school would envision their children continuing a college prep/international curriculum. The CMI administration argues that the IMYC program is particularly attuned to how to motivate the teenage brain. British International School is also using the IMYC curriculum to prep students for its IB High School.

[Anonymous]

I am an IB graduate and would not consider the international primary curriculum a good prep. And I'm not surprised the British school uses it as it is a British program. CMI sounds like a nice school but if they want do to a true IB curriculum that would be far more interesting to me than whatever nonsense the international primary curriculum pretends to be.

[Anonymous]

I don't think tree of life or roots had much more students in their upper grades, but their test scores got them closed.

There's some questionable double standards stuff going on
I mean, personally, I think the tests are bullshit also, but still

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an IB graduate and would not consider the international primary curriculum a good prep. And I'm not surprised the British school uses it as it is a British program. CMI sounds like a nice school but if they want do to a true IB curriculum that would be far more interesting to me than whatever nonsense the international primary curriculum pretends to be.

Please tell me the difference between the IB primary program and the IPC primary program. And what would a "true" IB curriculum be at the elementary or middle school level, particularly with respect to languages which is the original posters question??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an IB graduate and would not consider the international primary curriculum a good prep. And I'm not surprised the British school uses it as it is a British program. CMI sounds like a nice school but if they want do to a true IB curriculum that would be far more interesting to me than whatever nonsense the international primary curriculum pretends to be.

Please tell me the difference between the IB primary program and the IPC primary program. And what would a "true" IB curriculum be at the elementary or middle school level, particularly with respect to languages which is the original posters question??

NP-- it appears that the IPC is the bootleg/knock-off version of the IB program. Is it also cheaper than the IB? If so, that pretty much explains everything.

[Anonymous]

NP-- it appears that the IPC is the bootleg/knock-off version of the IB program. Is it also cheaper than the IB? If so, that pretty much explains everything.

It appears you've hit the nail on the head. Both are pay-to-play programs to impress people like yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP-- it appears that the IPC is the bootleg/knock-off version of the IB program. Is it also cheaper than the IB? If so, that pretty much explains everything.

It appears you've hit the nail on the head. Both are pay-to-play programs to impress people like yourself.

Well, I'm way more impressed with the IB program. I wouldn't waste my time or money on the "IPC" (AKA the poor man's IB).

[Anonymous]

Then don't...that is all!