FLES in FCPS

[Anonymous]

feel ok about FLES. My child is learning what I expected them to learn, but I feel other standards are being reduced in core classes. So I'm torn. Next year my child's school is going to one hour long session instead of two half hour lessons. Is this a positive or negative way to structure it? Does it help the teacher at least to come in less? Maybe less transitions and more time for the classroom teacher to plan?

Sounds to me this is more about planning time and less about FLES. There are lots of other things that could replace it that would be more useful if they really need the planning time. Another gym class, music, or art would be more useful. A technology class or something like that. They could even have a penmanship teacher! Your grandparents may have had one of those. Manners?

[Anonymous]

For our family though FLES is beneficial. We don't speak any other language and FLES is really more for families like us rather than native speakers. The kids already get three music classes a week at our school to give teachers extra planning time. I was just wondering whether this might make the program better or worse. For planning purposes it makes a lot more sense.

[Anonymous]

For our family though FLES is beneficial. We don't speak any other language and FLES is really more for families like us rather than native speakers. The kids already get three music classes a week at our school to give teachers extra planning time. I was just wondering whether this might make the program better or worse. For planning purposes it makes a lot more sense.

Really? YOu think they are learning a language? Not likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really can't expect practice or fluency when a child is exposed once or twice a week for 30 min. What you should expect is that they will develop an understanding and appreciation for the diversity of cultures and languages around the world. (Think 30,000 ft view vs. a 3 ft view.)

Folks, most other developed countries offer and require that students learn other languages. It's time to stop living and acting like 'Merica is the only place that matters.

And, keep in mind that just like art, music and PE may reach other children that may struggle with traditional academics, foreign languages may engage other kids.

Umm, no one is suggesting doing away with learning foreign languages, or that "'Merica is the only place that matters". But FLES is not teaching anything. My DD says the teacher just talks "at" them for 45 min. and then gets mad when the kids don't know what she's saying. Dedicated foreign language classes in middle and high school are great - no one is talking about eliminating them. But wasting time during the elementary school day on something as bogus as FLES is utterly irrational, especially when so many other core subjects are lacking - spelling and grammar in ENGLISH, for one.

That's just a bad teacher. That's not a reason to scrap FLES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really can't expect practice or fluency when a child is exposed once or twice a week for 30 min. What you should expect is that they will develop an understanding and appreciation for the diversity of cultures and languages around the world. (Think 30,000 ft view vs. a 3 ft view.)

Folks, most other developed countries offer and require that students learn other languages. It's time to stop living and acting like 'Merica is the only place that matters.

And, keep in mind that just like art, music and PE may reach other children that may struggle with traditional academics, foreign languages may engage other kids.

Uh yeah.... Thanks for the ejuhmacation. I'm a pp that thinks FLES is a waste of time and I'm married to someone from another country. He speaks three languages fluently. My child is exposed to plenty of diversity and different cultures from what he is exposed to by us. Not everyone who thinks this class is a waste is a dumb redneck, ok?

OP here. You are a different case. I'd venture to guess that the majority of FCPS families don't have the same home backgrounds. So while FLES may be less than what your child would get at home, normally, it is much more than others probably get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a waste. My child has learned nothing. His school has Spanish and neither dh or I speak it, so we can't help him learn it at home.

At least it's much more useful than Italian.
They should get rid of it and let the kids out of school earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1
In fact, I'd venture to say that those of us who want to get rid of FLES think foreign language education is very valuable. Just not this "class," once a week. It's a total waste of time and resources that should be spent on the basics, like English language arts. Save foreign language instruction for a time when there can be a dedicated class, every day (or every other day if block scheduled) in middle and high school.

Agree. Anyway, there is no continuity in this program. The kids are NOT learning the language. As for exposure, the classroom teacher can do that. Classroom teachers have always done that. As a first grade teacher, I taught kids about cultures around the world. We did it as part of the Social Studies program. We taught that all people need food, clothing, and shelter. Then, we taught about the different kinds of foods, houses, and clothes around the world. It was great fun and I hope the kids got an appreciation of people who live in other places. We would teach some basic phrases in other languages, as well, so that they had an appreciation of language.

.

Again - they aren't going to learn the language in 30 min a week. This is about exposure folks. Not fluency. Maybe you should demand that they take it 5 days a week. But scrapping it is not the right answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a waste. My child has learned nothing. His school has Spanish and neither dh or I speak it, so we can't help him learn it at home.

So, would it be a waste if you or your DH did speak it??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really can't expect practice or fluency when a child is exposed once or twice a week for 30 min. What you should expect is that they will develop an understanding and appreciation for the diversity of cultures and languages around the world. (Think 30,000 ft view vs. a 3 ft view.)

Folks, most other developed countries offer and require that students learn other languages. It's time to stop living and acting like 'Merica is the only place that matters.

And, keep in mind that just like art, music and PE may reach other children that may struggle with traditional academics, foreign languages may engage other kids.

Uh yeah.... Thanks for the ejuhmacation. I'm a pp that thinks FLES is a waste of time and I'm married to someone from another country. He speaks three languages fluently. My child is exposed to plenty of diversity and different cultures from what he is exposed to by us. Not everyone who thinks this class is a waste is a dumb redneck, ok?

OP here. You are a different case. I'd venture to guess that the majority of FCPS families don't have the same home backgrounds. So while FLES may be less than what your child would get at home, normally, it is much more than others probably get.

If the school district was truly concerned about the kids learning a second language, there would be much more time and effort devoted to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel ok about FLES. My child is learning what I expected them to learn, but I feel other standards are being reduced in core classes. So I'm torn. Next year my child's school is going to one hour long session instead of two half hour lessons. Is this a positive or negative way to structure it? Does it help the teacher at least to come in less? Maybe less transitions and more time for the classroom teacher to plan?

The reduction of standards, per your comment, isn't going to be solved by eliminating a 30 min class. You do realize that? It is much bigger than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really can't expect practice or fluency when a child is exposed once or twice a week for 30 min. What you should expect is that they will develop an understanding and appreciation for the diversity of cultures and languages around the world. (Think 30,000 ft view vs. a 3 ft view.)

Folks, most other developed countries offer and require that students learn other languages. It's time to stop living and acting like 'Merica is the only place that matters.

And, keep in mind that just like art, music and PE may reach other children that may struggle with traditional academics, foreign languages may engage other kids.

Uh yeah.... Thanks for the ejuhmacation. I'm a pp that thinks FLES is a waste of time and I'm married to someone from another country. He speaks three languages fluently. My child is exposed to plenty of diversity and different cultures from what he is exposed to by us. Not everyone who thinks this class is a waste is a dumb redneck, ok?

OP here. You are a different case. I'd venture to guess that the majority of FCPS families don't have the same home backgrounds. So while FLES may be less than what your child would get at home, normally, it is much more than others probably get.

If the school district was truly concerned about the kids learning a second language, there would be much more time and effort devoted to it.

13:19 poster here. I promise you, no one thinks your kid is learning a second language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For our family though FLES is beneficial. We don't speak any other language and FLES is really more for families like us rather than native speakers. The kids already get three music classes a week at our school to give teachers extra planning time. I was just wondering whether this might make the program better or worse. For planning purposes it makes a lot more sense.

Really? YOu think they are learning a language? Not likely.

No I think they are getting exposure. I would guess by the end of elementary they could travel to the country and get around a bit like a tourist. Yes, I think it's easier to learn a language in high school with some exposure in elementary and middle school.

[Anonymous]

No I think they are getting exposure. I would guess by the end of elementary they could travel to the country and get around a bit like a tourist. Yes, I think it's easier to learn a language in high school with some exposure in elementary and middle school.

Here's a little experience:

I taught in DOD schools. We had foreign language instruction twice a week in the elementary school. Living in the foreign country, that is right and appropriate.

The only kids who learned to speak the language were the kids who lived "on the economy" and played with kids who spoke that particular language.
The ones who lived on the military post rarely learned the language. Even the ones whose parents travelled with them and shopped outside the commissary. A handful were pretty adept with the foreign currency if they ventured across the road to the host nation candy store.

Sure, it was a good thing for these kids to have the exposure and opportunity. But, if kids living in the country didn't learn the language with two thirty minute sessions a week, what good do you think it will do our kids here?

I do believe that foreign language instruction is a good thing. However, I think there are many more places that would give our kids more value for the money spent.

If the goal is exposure--we have plenty of parents who could come in and share their own language.
If the goal is culture--ditto. I find it hard to believe that the teachers could not ask parents to come in and share their own experience of growing up in another country. I suppose there could be some classrooms in Fairfax Country with only American born parents, but I would think it highly unlikely.

Also, if Fairfax is going to do this, it seems to me there ought to be some consistency--or choice. Think about it, Spanish instruction in a school where lots of kids already speak Spanish seems a little redundant. Ditto, Chinese, Korean, Arabic.
Make this an afterschool program. Take your kid to language classes instead of soccer practice if that is your wish.

[Anonymous]

I think FLES is useless. If they want to teach a foreign language then do right and everyday. Twice a week is dabbling and doesn't really build skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No I think they are getting exposure. I would guess by the end of elementary they could travel to the country and get around a bit like a tourist. Yes, I think it's easier to learn a language in high school with some exposure in elementary and middle school.

Here's a little experience:

I taught in DOD schools. We had foreign language instruction twice a week in the elementary school. Living in the foreign country, that is right and appropriate.

The only kids who learned to speak the language were the kids who lived "on the economy" and played with kids who spoke that particular language.
The ones who lived on the military post rarely learned the language. Even the ones whose parents travelled with them and shopped outside the commissary. A handful were pretty adept with the foreign currency if they ventured across the road to the host nation candy store.

Sure, it was a good thing for these kids to have the exposure and opportunity. But, if kids living in the country didn't learn the language with two thirty minute sessions a week, what good do you think it will do our kids here?

I do believe that foreign language instruction is a good thing. However, I think there are many more places that would give our kids more value for the money spent.

If the goal is exposure--we have plenty of parents who could come in and share their own language.
If the goal is culture--ditto. I find it hard to believe that the teachers could not ask parents to come in and share their own experience of growing up in another country. I suppose there could be some classrooms in Fairfax Country with only American born parents, but I would think it highly unlikely.

Also, if Fairfax is going to do this, it seems to me there ought to be some consistency--or choice. Think about it, Spanish instruction in a school where lots of kids already speak Spanish seems a little redundant. Ditto, Chinese, Korean, Arabic.
Make this an afterschool program. Take your kid to language classes instead of soccer practice if that is your wish.

The reason they have Spanish in primarily Spanish speaking schools is to cut down on ESOL costs and also to create a less divisive community by teaching all students some Spanish. It's a win for county taxpayers due to cost and a win for all the students at the school.

Many people I know with only a little exposure ended up working overseas. You don't need to be perfectly fluent to get an overseas job or be able to converse here with other foreigners which I think is the goal of the program. There's a reason it isn't called immersion. FLES is very similar to most private schools that offer Spanish or French 1-2 days a week.