Changes to French Immersion at Kent Gardens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish language immersion would go away.

And, AAP centers.

Get rid of all specialized programs (except Special needs) which require transporation. It would save money on transportation and help create community schools.

Immersion doesn't get transportation. But yes, it needs to go away. Sure, it is a nice to have. Fairfax needs to get rid of the "nice to have" specialty program that doesn't benefit that many kids. It costs more even without transportation as in the upper elementary grades, class sizes end up smaller than gen ed most years but they can't add kids in. It also makes immersion schools huge. While our school doesn't feel cliquey, the immersion kids and the gen ed kids don't do a lot of mixing and it becomes rather insular. With LLIV coming to all schools, it also creates a scheduling nightmare because the immersion kids who are also identified as level 4 need to receive services and lots of grouping headaches happen.

[Anonymous]

If you want lottery schools and non-neighborhood craziness, move to Arlington. That's their jam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The primary benefits of immersion and early language acquisition for kids aren't because they will use the language for professional or other benefit in the future, nor necessarily even retain any degree of mastery or proficiency, but simply for the durable overall cognitive and executive function benefits that the experience conveys.

This.

+2

[Anonymous]

Why is it that the parents whose kids are not in the specialized programs are in favor of closing down anything that isn’t Gen Ed? LI and AAP and the few magnet schools have a place in education. They provide options and services for kids that are beneficial. Every parent has the option of applying for LI even if the majority choose not to apply.

If a LI school is full; change the lottery so that it only includes kids in the boundary.

The LI program at our school starts with a lot more kids in the LI program and ends up with pretty even size classes by 6th grade. The Gen Ed classes are smaller then LI for 4-5 years. I would guess that there are schools where LI classes are smaller then Gen Ed but that has not been our experience.

But the attitude that no one gets anything special because the kids in Gen Ed feel left out is pretty pervasive on this board and I don’t understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the parents whose kids are not in the specialized programs are in favor of closing down anything that isn’t Gen Ed? LI and AAP and the few magnet schools have a place in education. They provide options and services for kids that are beneficial. Every parent has the option of applying for LI even if the majority choose not to apply.

If a LI school is full; change the lottery so that it only includes kids in the boundary.

The LI program at our school starts with a lot more kids in the LI program and ends up with pretty even size classes by 6th grade. The Gen Ed classes are smaller then LI for 4-5 years. I would guess that there are schools where LI classes are smaller then Gen Ed but that has not been our experience.

But the attitude that no one gets anything special because the kids in Gen Ed feel left out is pretty pervasive on this board and I don’t understand it. [/quote]

Your assumption is incorrect. There are lots of reasons people oppose it.

1.I've taught where kids were bussed in from another community. It is not unifying.
2. Plenty of "special" instruction can be offered in the neighborhood schools.
3. It is less expensive and allows more funds to be spent on instruction.
4. Special programs create uneven class sizes in schools. For example: AAP centers. Sometimes the gened classes are larger and sometimes the AAP classes are larger. In some cases, in some schools, the difference is extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that the parents whose kids are not in the specialized programs are in favor of closing down anything that isn’t Gen Ed? LI and AAP and the few magnet schools have a place in education. They provide options and services for kids that are beneficial. Every parent has the option of applying for LI even if the majority choose not to apply.

If a LI school is full; change the lottery so that it only includes kids in the boundary.

The LI program at our school starts with a lot more kids in the LI program and ends up with pretty even size classes by 6th grade. The Gen Ed classes are smaller then LI for 4-5 years. I would guess that there are schools where LI classes are smaller then Gen Ed but that has not been our experience.

But the attitude that no one gets anything special because the kids in Gen Ed feel left out is pretty pervasive on this board and I don’t understand it. [/quote]

Your assumption is incorrect. There are lots of reasons people oppose it.

1.I've taught where kids were bussed in from another community. It is not unifying.
2. Plenty of "special" instruction can be offered in the neighborhood schools.
3. It is less expensive and allows more funds to be spent on instruction.
4. Special programs create uneven class sizes in schools. For example: AAP centers. Sometimes the gened classes are larger and sometimes the AAP classes are larger. In some cases, in some schools, the difference is extreme.

This. I'm a teacher who agrees with all of the points above. I'm not anti-immersion, but I dislike that the neighborhood school my own kids attend isn't unified. The first question you get when you meet people at the neighborhood pool is "immersion or non-immersion." It's not said in a mean way, but it ends up dividing people. If you kid is immersion and the other kid isn't, they will never be in the same class. Our school is not overcrowded, but it is HUGE...an 800/900 kid elementary school just doesn't give off a community vibe. It would be more like 600 without immersion.
Also, AAP is like special education...it's a service that those students need (debatable, I know, but it is treated like SpEd in that bussing is provided). Immersion is not. Why are we funding something that may provide some additional benefit to a few kids at the expense of being able to provide more funding/more resources to basic instructional needs? In my view, it is a giant mismatch to say that FCPS is going to put local level IV at all schools to fit the community school model it wants while also having immersion as an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids went to KG and didn’t do immersion (we did apply but didn’t get a spot). KG is a great school and I love the principal but I think the immersion thing is kind of overrated. The kids I know that aren’t French speakers at home really don’t seem to have learned that much French by the time they are done. It does seem to attract a lot of people who have some connection to France or speak French at home. We have several French families or French speaking families in my neighborhood. I don’t know that I think it’s all that as a program.

+1

The whole "my kids will translate UN meetings thanks to the French they learned at KG" argument is laughable. Enroll your kids at Rochambeau if you want them to be fluent, educated French speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids went to KG and didn’t do immersion (we did apply but didn’t get a spot). KG is a great school and I love the principal but I think the immersion thing is kind of overrated. The kids I know that aren’t French speakers at home really don’t seem to have learned that much French by the time they are done. It does seem to attract a lot of people who have some connection to France or speak French at home. We have several French families or French speaking families in my neighborhood. I don’t know that I think it’s all that as a program.

+1

The whole "my kids will translate UN meetings thanks to the French they learned at KG" argument is laughable. Enroll your kids at Rochambeau if you want them to be fluent, educated French speakers.

+1 The only KG immersion kids I knew that would be considered fluent gad at least one French fluent parent at home and spent extended time in summers in a French speaking country.

[Anonymous]

This is the current structure: https://www.fcps.edu/academics/world-languages-immersion-programs

As a PP noted, sounds like they are thinking about switching Kent Gardens from a county-wide lottery program to a school-based lottery program. This would be the only instance in which an immersion program in a particular language is only available at a single school that has a school-based lottery program (all the other school-based lottery programs are for Spanish, which is also available at schools with county-wide lottery programs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids went to KG and didn’t do immersion (we did apply but didn’t get a spot). KG is a great school and I love the principal but I think the immersion thing is kind of overrated. The kids I know that aren’t French speakers at home really don’t seem to have learned that much French by the time they are done. It does seem to attract a lot of people who have some connection to France or speak French at home. We have several French families or French speaking families in my neighborhood. I don’t know that I think it’s all that as a program.

+1

The whole "my kids will translate UN meetings thanks to the French they learned at KG" argument is laughable. Enroll your kids at Rochambeau if you want them to be fluent, educated French speakers.

+1 The only KG immersion kids I knew that would be considered fluent gad at least one French fluent parent at home and spent extended time in summers in a French speaking country.

I had an early version of FLES (not LI) at an FCPS elementary school years ago. That equipped me to later finish French 5 by junior year of high school, score a 5 on the French AP exam, and take an upper-level French class with mostly French majors as a freshman in college. I wasn't translating UN meetings, but I was reading books on contemporary French history written by French authors. So I definitely found the early exposure to a Romance language helpful, including when I later decided to pick up some other languages like Italian and Portuguese.

It seems like a straw man argument to suggest that the program is not worthwhile because it doesn't accomplish something that few, if anyone, is claiming it does. Maybe they should call the program something other than "immersion," but the hostility seems overblown. I do understand why FCPS might need to make some adjustments, though, if a program overcrowds a school where it is currently offered.

[Anonymous]

My kids are out-of-boundary and attend KG and it has been absolutely great for them. No, they are not going to be fluent just through this experience but it's an additional type of learning that's very beneficial for their developing brains, plus expands linguistic and cultural awareness daily from a young age. They have friends who are in-boundary and out, immersion and non-immersion (more immersion, yes, but it's not like there's a divide). My older DC is in both immersion and AAP and there are a lot of kids doing that, so seems not to be a problem (the class isn't smaller than normal). Love the admin, love the school vibe.

And and love that FCPS provides some non-mainstream options for families and kids who want them. In a school system of this size, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to support special programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The primary benefits of immersion and early language acquisition for kids aren't because they will use the language for professional or other benefit in the future, nor necessarily even retain any degree of mastery or proficiency, but simply for the durable overall cognitive and executive function benefits that the experience conveys.

This.

+2

+100 This is why LI is so worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

Doesn’t sound too different from parents talking about their kids being in AAP, or at TJ, or on an IB diploma track.

And the kids still have better foreign language skills heading into middle school than the kids who haven’t been in an immersion program, even if they aren’t fluent.

I teach at a middle school that has former ES immersion kids. If they dont speak the language at home, the kids arent even leaps and bound ahead. It gets you an extra year of language before HS. It costs $$ because the upper elementary immersion classes are smaller than gen ed in most cases (you have to test in after 2nd grade and some kids leave for AAP/a better fit) and the language classes at the MS level are separate and never full. It also is really darn hard to find a part-time German/Japanese/non-Spanish teacher to teach the class in MS (never more than 1-2 sections). And yes, immersion is probably even more cliquey than AAP. It should be eliminated.

Your MS doesn’t have language in 7th and 8th grade for immersion kids? Interesting bc ours does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

Doesn’t sound too different from parents talking about their kids being in AAP, or at TJ, or on an IB diploma track.

And the kids still have better foreign language skills heading into middle school than the kids who haven’t been in an immersion program, even if they aren’t fluent.

I teach at a middle school that has former ES immersion kids. If they dont speak the language at home, the kids arent even leaps and bound ahead. It gets you an extra year of language before HS. It costs $$ because the upper elementary immersion classes are smaller than gen ed in most cases (you have to test in after 2nd grade and some kids leave for AAP/a better fit) and the language classes at the MS level are separate and never full. It also is really darn hard to find a part-time German/Japanese/non-Spanish teacher to teach the class in MS (never more than 1-2 sections). And yes, immersion is probably even more cliquey than AAP. It should be eliminated.

Your MS doesn’t have language in 7th and 8th grade for immersion kids? Interesting bc ours does.

I think PP was referring to the challenge with offering, say, German Immersion 1 to 7th graders at Irving, when those classes will mostly include just kids coming from the German immersion program at Orange Hunt. Or same with respect to Japanese at Cooper (kids coming from Great Falls), French at Longfellow (kids coming from Kent Gardens), or Korean at Liberty (kids coming from Powell).

Maybe there are staffing challenges, but the same can be said for other positions throughout FCPS. Agree with the poster who said it's sad when people just want programs eliminated because their own kids don't participate. If they get rid of language programs, they should have an even larger bulls-eye on AAP and TJHSST.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are out-of-boundary and attend KG and it has been absolutely great for them. No, they are not going to be fluent just through this experience but it's an additional type of learning that's very beneficial for their developing brains, plus expands linguistic and cultural awareness daily from a young age. They have friends who are in-boundary and out, immersion and non-immersion (more immersion, yes, but it's not like there's a divide). My older DC is in both immersion and AAP and there are a lot of kids doing that, so seems not to be a problem (the class isn't smaller than normal). Love the admin, love the school vibe.

And and love that FCPS provides some non-mainstream options for families and kids who want them. In a school system of this size, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to support special programs.

There is no reason a school system of any size should be supporting ancillary programs that in fact are negatives for students who live in the attendance boundary. Ideally FCPS should dedicate a building for the non Spanish Immersion programs which really serve as extra ESL. Fox Mill and Floris got combined for Japanese so FCPS should do something about Kent Gardens and Great Falls.

It's ridiculous that Kent Gardens took immersion transfers instead of any base school student. Kent Gardens is at 121% capacity-178 over and gets 174 for immersion transferring in. Plus other transfers in can be siblings of those in immersion or students who left immersion and just stay. FCPS does not publish the numbers in immersion or the actual class sizes. Those numbers should be available at schools with immersion by base school and transfers in.

The volume of immersion students at Kent Gardens should mean NO extra funding except for instructional materials and a stipend to a lead teacher. But that is not what happens.

Great Falls is another immersion problem since the program makes the school undesirable. That building is at 83% capacity and Colvin Run did not want the program when it opened. Immersion can be run as full day dedicated classrooms or pull out for the foreign language portion of the academic day. That school siphoned off regular ed staff allocations just to make the program work while having unbearable class sizes for the English language portion for all students.