Immersion program may leave gunston

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.
Anonymous
I am not sure if folks realize this, but immersion is moving to 80/20 this coming school year for the lower grades. There is an entire new program and new curriculum. We started a lot of this last year with a new curriculum (my kid was finally learning Spanish grammar!). The taskforce has done a lot to strengthen the program.

As a Hispanic family I REFUSE to believe that families don't continue because of the distance. To be honest, I find it somewhat insulting this idea that white/English speaking families will travel to all ends of the earth for their kids to go to school but for us if the school isn't out our front door we won't go.

I think the reason families don't chose immersion at higher levels goes deeper than that. My relatives were physically disciplined by teachers and administrators for speaking Spanish in school growing up (hit with rulers on the back of their legs). In turn they ensured that their kids (my generation) only spoke English and told us time and time again that we had to speak English. I think there is a lot of history (and some trauma) to overcome to know that it is okay for this generation to learn Spanish in school. Even now, long past his elementary school career, my husband is still amazed it is safe for my kids to speak Spanish in school.

Then even if parents are comfortable with Spanish in ES, I think there is recognition that college and jobs are in English, and I think the value of the program goes down after ES. These kids can continue speaking Spanish at home and then fully speak English in school. English speaking families obviously don't have that option.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm sorry that you're unaware that self directed learning is a defined teaching pedagogy. Maybe do a little googling.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.


Last year was the first year (I believe) they introduced a standardizes Spanish assessment. It measures spanish reading and writing. It has set goals parameters. Unfortunately I don't know the name of it and as a parent I don't have access to the test or scores but it is part of the new DLI curriculum.

This would likely be helpful if you want to learn more.

Dual Language Immersion Program Framework - BoardDocs https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/CATKD85141FB/$file/H-1%20APS%20Dual%20Language%20Immersion%20Program%20Framework.pdf


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.


Start with the HB website then google. This isn't hard.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.


Start with the HB website then google. This isn't hard.


HB website is complete fluff. They don’t have any pedagogy since they are hemmed in by curriculum requirements and common core. The “independence” was a 70s thing
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.


Start with the HB website then google. This isn't hard.


I've read it. I don't see "student choice" a particularly outstanding pedagogy warranting its own program. Students in any neighborhood school can, and are, encouraged to make choices and be responsible for their education. Students may be given MORE choices and have quirks like optional town hall meetings, optional class attendance, etc. But I don't see how that, in and of itself, is a sufficient pedagogy to justify a self-contained program for a mere 440 high school students. That does not mean that I do not see value in HB. I do think HB initially did and could serve certain students well because of its size, a strong intimate community, inclusive attitudes, and more individual one-on-one mentorships. Unfortunately, I do not believe that students are admitted according to who would most benefit from that environment; and that's what I believe option programs should be for and do: serve the students who would most benefit from its clearly differentiated learning environment and/or instructional technique.

I always assume the person doesn't really understand the answer whenever they are willing to take the time to argue back and forth but not take 60 seconds to actually answer the question and explain the pedagogy. And if they actually are able to explain it but don't, then it really isn't all that important to them that other people learn or understand. That's fine. Don't expect me to support you, should HB ever need support for some reason such as maintaining its current size, it being moved to another unwanted location again, being cut, a second HB being advocated for, whatever.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:my family left immersion after last year and I wish we would have done it sooner. I hope they figure out the plan for things soon because the program is suffering.


I'm the IPP poster. Part of the issue is only a few of the options have a genuine pedagogy attached, e.g., HB and Montessori. With those you can point to key parameters, identify pathways, distinguish individual progress, and adhere to them. Other options like ATS or Immersion have been more of a concept that were kind of thrown up on the chalkboard to see what sticks in a time of need of moving seats around. With Immersion, a key parameter became a demographic balance that is out of the control of a school system - that's tough and means the program is always expending energy on it. There are other challenges, like finding dual language certified teachers in subjects, for instance, where APS does not really get help from outside world. By contrast in Montessori, at least there's a whole ecosystem of training and certifying educators.


Hmm. Just what is HB's clear distinct pedagogy, and what are its specific key parameters, pathways, and measures of individual progress? Please don't tell me it's students taking responsibility for themselves or small classes and a small community. Those do not make a distinct pedagogy.

Montessori has a philosophy, yes. But show me the data that clearly demonstrate its notable impacts that could not otherwise be achieved through other means.

The idea to begin immersion might have started with the premise of being a way to de-segregate some students; but you can't honestly proclaim it does not have a unique focus? One that is of obvious benefit in our local area as well as a nation overall with a high % of Spanish-speaking immigrants? One that has some advantages for Spanish speaking English language learners.

ATS? I'm on board with that one. Except that it actually is distinguishable from the other neighborhood schools by its expectations, discipline, and results. However, that should not be an option program, it should be the standard.

You are so clearly Montessori. Justifying Montessori's "ecosystem of training and certifying educators" but dissing immersion's challenges to find dual language certified teachers without "help from the outside world."

I'm not an option parent of any sort. But I would support an immersion program over Montessori any day of the week. The challenges have an far more obvious pay-off than a Montessori education. The additional costs provide students with a useful distinguishing skill (bilingualism). Whereas, if I hadn't read about it, I would never in a million years have suspected or known Jeff Bezos was a Montessori product. Nothing distinguishing, aside from his ego, which some people can relate to the Arlington Montessori parents' belief that their children are more special than others and their "pedagogy" is so superior.


I'm an Immersion fan. What sparked me to comment were the comments seemingly advocating for it to finally be curtained. I don't agree. And I do agree with you that bilingualism should be encouraged in K-12 for society's benefit.
But I'm also correct that the pedagogy has been a mystery, a moving target. And the program as it existed for past 20 years was struggling (as others here attested). Those are also true, along with society's benefits. Public schools systems still run on the need for clear key parameters and expectations, hence the entire state DOE and SOLs, etc.
Clearly you dislike Montessori. Fine. I'm HB - there, now you can really hate me, right? But the pedag Go of project-based learning with individualized student approaches has a far more studied and proven track record than the nothing-official at APS Immersion. That's also a fact.
We're in a public system and we have to follow best practices, pedagogies and codified processes accordingly. If your only justification for a school is some kind of unquantifiable benefit than any folks would say go private and get it. Like I said, I'm an Immersion supporter but it's easier for HB and Montessori communities to advocate in the public system because of this. Hence why ATS is also under fire.


Still genuinely interested in what the official specific pedagogy of HB is. I don't believe PBL was it, certainly not when it was established. And other schools use PBL. In fact, AT is really the program with the PBL pedagogy. As is Drew; it's just not an option program at Drew.

I don't hate Montessori. I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all that MPSA parents believe and proclaim. And if option programs had to be prioritized and cut, Montessori would be the first on my chopping block because I don't think it's critical to offer a free Montessori program. I believe the preschool program's tuition scale needs significant adjustment as well (a steeper sliding scale for higher incomes, specifically).

I still disagree with your perspective on the immersion program. It has struggled only from difficulty luring Spanish speaking families and retaining the 50/50 model. Yes, qualified teachers are an issue, too. That can be said for IB as well; but you haven't targeted that one. (FWIW, I don't see much value in the IB at elementary or middle school levels. If APS isn't going to "do" IB full-on, then they should eliminate it. I can see some value in the partial program at the high school level. Still, my opinion is that it should be an option program with equal access across the County and not tied to WL's attendance zone.)

Nevertheless, why has there been a challenge getting native Spanish speaking families to sign up for immersion? Location of the program is one significant factor. Another one is how Arlington has concentrated Hispanic families in neighborhood schools and concentrated a lot of targeted supports, Community in Schools. They like their neighborhood school community and don't want to give up those programs/supports to send their kids to immersion when they already speak Spanish. Another factor is that many immigrant families don't want their kids to be educated in Spanish - they want them learning English. Yes, they learn English in immersion; but that's not what they're looking for.

IMO, as long as the academic outcomes are comparable, there's no pressing need to end immersion because of the language benefits, the "leveling of the playing field" at the start for both groups of learners, and its facilitation of a few schools that are more socioeconomically diverse because of the multiple benefits that brings to all kids, especially any underprivileged kids. I don't think the parameters/outcomes need to be unique per se for a pedagogy to be unique. The method of getting to the same academic goals is what constitutes the pedagogy. For immersion, it's the 50/50 model and obviously learning a language via immersion at an early age when humans more easily learn languages.

But I am still unclear on what the specific pedagogy of HB is. I've known countless HB families. None of them have been able to explain it. All I can glean is its smallness and sense of community; students supposed to be taking responsibility for their education and being on more equal footing with their teachers calling them by first names. We can't all have such small schools; but every school develops a sense of community and encourages students to take responsibility for their education. I don't see the critical need to call teachers by their first name. Similar to ATS, the most attractive aspects of HB shouldn't be an option program. They should be standard. Including the counseling and mentoring. Contrary to what you probably think, I don't hate HB, either. I don't like how the admissions is conducted and don't believe it is generally serving the students who can most benefit from the environment. And it is the environment that I think makes HB different; more so than any pedagogy. But if there is a specific pedagogy at work, I would be interested in understanding it better.

I do believe the option programs need a complete re-evaluation and slimming down. We just likely don't agree on which ones should be slimmed down first.


A "complete reevaluation and slimming down"... Good grief, why?! You seem to suffer the exact same superiority complex that you accuse others of having. Options are strongly desired by the APS community, and most if not all of the schools have waitlists each year. Each program has vibrant constituency. I support all options, they are equal schools to neighborhoods. And I sure wouldn't trust your own personal vendetta against a couple of them to be the reason to shut them down. You lose credibility when you don't want to use objective metrics of measuring and instead base your conclusion on a grudge.

I have no vendetta or grudge. Finding criticism with something, or finding something acceptable to be considered for budget reasons, does not equal personal vendett or grudge.


Just because you don't understand them isn't a need to shut them down.


I'm not saying shut them down. I've asked multiple times for information about the pedagogies and the measurable parameters. Not getting any answers from you to help me see your point of view.


Start with the HB website then google. This isn't hard.


HB website is complete fluff. They don’t have any pedagogy since they are hemmed in by curriculum requirements and common core. The “independence” was a 70s thing

+1
Anonymous
Thank you to whoever posted the link to the DLI framework (https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/CATKD85141FB/$file/H-1%20APS%20Dual%20Language%20Immersion%20Program%20Framework.pdf). I hadn't read that doc but now that I have I see the writing on the wall regarding the proposal to move to Kenmore. Beginning on page 25...

"Additional Considerations
Program continuation rates from grade 5 to 6 are lower from Escuela Key families:
• In the year, 2020 to 2021, continuation rates from elementary to middle school reflected a significant percentage of students not completing the DLI pathway:
• Claremont 72% and
• Escuela Key 54%
• Feedback received during the DLI visioning process and previous World Languages Office Program evaluations indicated that travel distance to the location of the current middle school program is a barrier to continuing with the DLI program beyond grade 5.

Several members of the DLI community, including those who participated on the Task Force and the DLI Elementary Feeder Structure Committee expressed that a centralized location for the middle school program would increase program continuation rates through the secondary level by reducing travel distance. The DLI Task Force decided that it was necessary to retain one middle school site at this time for the DLI programs. This option may be reconsidered at a later date.

A critical factor in the successful implementation of a third elementary Pre-K - 5 DLI program is interest in implementing a DLI program from an additional elementary school community with the student population needed to support the DLI program model."

I think this is far from a definitive, data driven justification, but it shows what may be the origins of the proposed moved.
post reply Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS
Message Quick Reply
Go to: