Why Hebrew immersion at Sela?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A previous poster who said Sela is a well-run, smaller school perfectly describes the appeal for our family. We're going into year three at Sela and had looked at a variety of schools during the PK3 lottery, both other immersion charters, non-immersion charters, and DCPS (both in-bound and a nearby school). We were primarily looking for an environment that felt like the right fit. Sela was not our first choice but we've now passed on the lottery twice because of the great experience our child has had there. We have found warm and welcoming families, and the school leadership is responsive and organized, with clear goals for Sela. We do not speak Hebrew and are not Jewish.

We appreciate the language immersion, and I find the discussion of which language is more useful a little silly. Who knows how many of the children in the other immersion charters will pursue French, Spanish, or Mandarin long term? Eventually, it will be up to my child which additional language she wants to pursue (if any), and I think learning a second language now will help her in the future.

There is also some cynicism in this thread and a typical DCUM habit of introducing misinformation even though the answers are easily searchable. Of course, the school is secular and non-religious. The school is not under enrolled - it's just not one of the charters that has a long waitlist and my understanding is there is always a few spots open right before the start of the school year.

Good perspective from another parent who actually has experience with the school. (The cynicism and misinformation on this thread, plus some other questionable undercurrents, are rather unfortunate.)

[Anonymous]

Hebrew is a fairly easy language to learn. Sone things make it tricky because it has a different alphabet, reads right to left, and the written language has no vowels. Otherwise, it has very simple grammar, and is really easy to learn compared with other languages.

A lot of people find value in learning a foreign language. I think French and Spanish are the most popular languages for immersion schools but there are a lot of native Hebrew speakers in the DC area so the school is probably able to hire qualified teachers.

Some people probably think it is not a very helpful language to learn because there are not that many Hebrew speakers in the world. But learning any language is valuable to a child’s education. And Hebrew is a fascinating language with ancient and modern roots.

Sela has been a popular choice since it was founded. It clearly serves plenty of families’ needs and interests. That is enough to justify its existence. Not everything needs to be for everyone. You don’t understand it. That’s fine. But why does the fact that it doesn’t interest you lead you want to question the school’s merits to serve the DC community? Not everything is for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many kids go to Sela just because they were turned down at other Spanish/Mandarin/French/etc. immersion schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many kids go to Sela just because they were turned down at other Spanish/Mandarin/French/etc. immersion schools.

Obviously this is anecdotal but all the families I know who go there didn’t get into their topic immersion schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is always good but it does seem like an odd option for DC, especially given that the vast majority of the students at the school are not Jewish.

1) There are only about 6 million Hebrew speakers in Israel/Palestine and just about 9 million worldwide. There are more native Greek speakers worldwide than Hebrew but yet no publicly funded Greek school.

2) There are about 1.2 billion Mandarin speakers in the world, 500 million Spanish speakers, 365 million Arabic speakers, etc. Seems like adding immersion schools in DC with the most common (and thus most useful) languages would make more sense than Hebrew

3) Most people in Israel speak English, so you really don't need Hebrew to get around there.

4) Given that almost all Hebrew speakers are Jewish and/or Israeli (and Palestinians who need it there), how does the school deal with religious and political issues? What materials are they using?

5) What kind of support is the school getting from the Israeli Embassy, Chabad-Lubavitch, etc.?

Oh here we go...so predictable.

If you were truly interested in understanding this, Sela explains that Hebrew is an entrance point to learning other Semitic languages such as Arabic and Amharic. They also say that modern Hebrew is a relatively easy language to learn as it was designed to be taught to large groups of recent immigrants to Israel.

Sela is an excellent school. No one is making your children go there, so calm down. I think the more language options, the better.

You didn't address any of PP's points.

Your arguments are dumb. Hebrew is an "entrance point" to Arabic and Amharic, and it is an "easy" language? That is your justification for a Hebrew immersion school in DC? Give me a break. Besides, Spanish and Mandarin are actually useful endpoint languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people and, at least, Spanish is easy for English speakers.

Who cares that you think Sela is an excellent school? Why are DC taxpayer dollars funding a Hebrew school instead of something that appeals to a much broader group of students and would be a lot more useful?

You sound defensive. Maybe you should "calm down" and address the points made earlier instead of resorting to weak arguments and ad hominem attacks.

I can express my opinion about Sela just as you can. Yours is not the only view.

As to Hebrew -- first off, the utility of learning a language is not limited to the number of people who speak it, although that is certainly a significant factor. You mentioned Greek earlier, and it is similar to Hebrew in usage (there about one million more Greek speakers). And I think a Greek immersion program, if available, would be a terrific option as well, given the historic and cultural importance of Greece.

The more language options the better. To me, that means not opposing the one Hebrew option, which no one is required to choose, but rather supporting additional options as well, beyond the multiple Spanish, French, and Mandarin programs that currently exist.

There is more about your rage over Hebrew that I'm not going to say here, and you would never acknowledge it anyway. So I've said my piece and am done.

NP and while I have no rage over Hebrew or whatever you are saying, I disagree with your premise that the more immersion options the better. I think we need to focus on expanding the number of spots for languages that will provide most useful in the future to the most students. I would say the top of that list is Spanish and would much rather DC expand immersion Spanish options and catch up a bit with much of the world where second languages are taught from early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many kids go to Sela just because they were turned down at other Spanish/Mandarin/French/etc. immersion schools.

Obviously this is anecdotal but all the families I know who go there didn’t get into their topic immersion schools.

Quite a few MV transplants at Sela who couldn’t deal with the violence and chaos, tho. Their retention rates are high, so while haters like PP are triggered by Sela’s existence, they are clearly doing something right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

NP. I agree with you. People like you don’t walk your talk. But you love your immersion schools and esp love telling people how wonderfully progressive and diverse they are. Until you bail to W3/Md/Va/private for MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

[Anonymous]

^ But yes, high SES parents at Sela CAN say "my kids at a Title 1 school"

sorry for the typo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is always good but it does seem like an odd option for DC, especially given that the vast majority of the students at the school are not Jewish.

1) There are only about 6 million Hebrew speakers in Israel/Palestine and just about 9 million worldwide. There are more native Greek speakers worldwide than Hebrew but yet no publicly funded Greek school.

2) There are about 1.2 billion Mandarin speakers in the world, 500 million Spanish speakers, 365 million Arabic speakers, etc. Seems like adding immersion schools in DC with the most common (and thus most useful) languages would make more sense than Hebrew

3) Most people in Israel speak English, so you really don't need Hebrew to get around there.

4) Given that almost all Hebrew speakers are Jewish and/or Israeli (and Palestinians who need it there), how does the school deal with religious and political issues? What materials are they using?

5) What kind of support is the school getting from the Israeli Embassy, Chabad-Lubavitch, etc.?

Oh here we go...so predictable.

If you were truly interested in understanding this, Sela explains that Hebrew is an entrance point to learning other Semitic languages such as Arabic and Amharic. They also say that modern Hebrew is a relatively easy language to learn as it was designed to be taught to large groups of recent immigrants to Israel.

Sela is an excellent school. No one is making your children go there, so calm down. I think the more language options, the better.

You didn't address any of PP's points.

Your arguments are dumb. Hebrew is an "entrance point" to Arabic and Amharic, and it is an "easy" language? That is your justification for a Hebrew immersion school in DC? Give me a break. Besides, Spanish and Mandarin are actually useful endpoint languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people and, at least, Spanish is easy for English speakers.

Who cares that you think Sela is an excellent school? Why are DC taxpayer dollars funding a Hebrew school instead of something that appeals to a much broader group of students and would be a lot more useful?

You sound defensive. Maybe you should "calm down" and address the points made earlier instead of resorting to weak arguments and ad hominem attacks.

I can express my opinion about Sela just as you can. Yours is not the only view.

As to Hebrew -- first off, the utility of learning a language is not limited to the number of people who speak it, although that is certainly a significant factor. You mentioned Greek earlier, and it is similar to Hebrew in usage (there about one million more Greek speakers). And I think a Greek immersion program, if available, would be a terrific option as well, given the historic and cultural importance of Greece.

The more language options the better. To me, that means not opposing the one Hebrew option, which no one is required to choose, but rather supporting additional options as well, beyond the multiple Spanish, French, and Mandarin programs that currently exist.

There is more about your rage over Hebrew that I'm not going to say here, and you would never acknowledge it anyway. So I've said my piece and am done.

NP and while I have no rage over Hebrew or whatever you are saying, I disagree with your premise that the more immersion options the better. I think we need to focus on expanding the number of spots for languages that will provide most useful in the future to the most students. I would say the top of that list is Spanish and would much rather DC expand immersion Spanish options and catch up a bit with much of the world where second languages are taught from early on.

+1, agree on Spanish. I would also argue that immigration patterns in this area would argue for French, Hindi, or Arabic immersion well before Hebrew. The argument for Hebrew feels strained at best. I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is always good but it does seem like an odd option for DC, especially given that the vast majority of the students at the school are not Jewish.

1) There are only about 6 million Hebrew speakers in Israel/Palestine and just about 9 million worldwide. There are more native Greek speakers worldwide than Hebrew but yet no publicly funded Greek school.

2) There are about 1.2 billion Mandarin speakers in the world, 500 million Spanish speakers, 365 million Arabic speakers, etc. Seems like adding immersion schools in DC with the most common (and thus most useful) languages would make more sense than Hebrew

3) Most people in Israel speak English, so you really don't need Hebrew to get around there.

4) Given that almost all Hebrew speakers are Jewish and/or Israeli (and Palestinians who need it there), how does the school deal with religious and political issues? What materials are they using?

5) What kind of support is the school getting from the Israeli Embassy, Chabad-Lubavitch, etc.?

Oh here we go...so predictable.

If you were truly interested in understanding this, Sela explains that Hebrew is an entrance point to learning other Semitic languages such as Arabic and Amharic. They also say that modern Hebrew is a relatively easy language to learn as it was designed to be taught to large groups of recent immigrants to Israel.

Sela is an excellent school. No one is making your children go there, so calm down. I think the more language options, the better.

You didn't address any of PP's points.

Your arguments are dumb. Hebrew is an "entrance point" to Arabic and Amharic, and it is an "easy" language? That is your justification for a Hebrew immersion school in DC? Give me a break. Besides, Spanish and Mandarin are actually useful endpoint languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people and, at least, Spanish is easy for English speakers.

Who cares that you think Sela is an excellent school? Why are DC taxpayer dollars funding a Hebrew school instead of something that appeals to a much broader group of students and would be a lot more useful?

You sound defensive. Maybe you should "calm down" and address the points made earlier instead of resorting to weak arguments and ad hominem attacks.

I can express my opinion about Sela just as you can. Yours is not the only view.

As to Hebrew -- first off, the utility of learning a language is not limited to the number of people who speak it, although that is certainly a significant factor. You mentioned Greek earlier, and it is similar to Hebrew in usage (there about one million more Greek speakers). And I think a Greek immersion program, if available, would be a terrific option as well, given the historic and cultural importance of Greece.

The more language options the better. To me, that means not opposing the one Hebrew option, which no one is required to choose, but rather supporting additional options as well, beyond the multiple Spanish, French, and Mandarin programs that currently exist.

There is more about your rage over Hebrew that I'm not going to say here, and you would never acknowledge it anyway. So I've said my piece and am done.

NP and while I have no rage over Hebrew or whatever you are saying, I disagree with your premise that the more immersion options the better. I think we need to focus on expanding the number of spots for languages that will provide most useful in the future to the most students. I would say the top of that list is Spanish and would much rather DC expand immersion Spanish options and catch up a bit with much of the world where second languages are taught from early on.

+1, agree on Spanish. I would also argue that immigration patterns in this area would argue for French, Hindi, or Arabic immersion well before Hebrew. The argument for Hebrew feels strained at best. I don't get it.

Surely you know that there are multiple French options already, in addition to Spanish and Mandarin. And no one is arguing against teaching additional languages. Arabic in particular is quite hard to acquire as an adult (I've tried) so may also be a good option for early immersion. There is someone on this thread (or maybe two people) who is/are particularly angry that Hebrew is a option. They tend to shift argument and justifications. They are clearly not familiar with Sela, don't have kids there, and probably don't know any parents of kids there. Yet they dismiss more informed views. Whatever their underlying agenda, they are triggered by this one school, which is doing well. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Thousands of schools all over the world reach Latin, which has ZERO Native speakers. Hebrew has the same cultural and literary impact as Latin, Greek, and many other ancient languages, as well as a (small) country of native speakers.

As for politics… as if every country in the world doesn’t have complex politics and history. Elementary school kids aren’t learning about the conflict, there is plenty to teach them without it. The Hebrew language offers so much and only people who know nothing about it need to jump immediately to politics.