FCPS Immersion Program efficacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

How would cutting immersion save money?

-Parents are responsible for transporting their OOB kids so there's no bussing provided.

-Kids would be educated in another classroom if they weren't in immersion so you aren't reducing needed staff

-They're taught the same materials only in the target language so there isn't any additional supplies needed.

What extra money is spent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

How would cutting immersion save money?

-Parents are responsible for transporting their OOB kids so there's no bussing provided.

-Kids would be educated in another classroom if they weren't in immersion so you aren't reducing needed staff

-They're taught the same materials only in the target language so there isn't any additional supplies needed.

What extra money is spent?

I don't think the bolded are accurate statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

How would cutting immersion save money?

-Parents are responsible for transporting their OOB kids so there's no bussing provided.

-Kids would be educated in another classroom if they weren't in immersion so you aren't reducing needed staff

-They're taught the same materials only in the target language so there isn't any additional supplies needed.

What extra money is spent?

I don't think the bolded are accurate statements.

OOOPs! I did not intend to bold the one about transportation and neglected to bold the second issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

[Anonymous]

And it’s not fair because it’s offered to Kent Gardens base almost exclusively. Very few slots are open to non-base students. Why should Kent Gardens have a program not available to other students just because of where they live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

How would cutting immersion save money?

-Parents are responsible for transporting their OOB kids so there's no bussing provided.

-Kids would be educated in another classroom if they weren't in immersion so you aren't reducing needed staff

-They're taught the same materials only in the target language so there isn't any additional supplies needed.

What extra money is spent?

I don't think the bolded are accurate statements.

OOOPs! I did not intend to bold the one about transportation and neglected to bold the second issue.

The principal said that the immersion teacher comes out of the existing head count; As per supplies - the teacher has a list of "nice to have" and a lot of parents purchase them for the class. So - at this point immersion school seems to be which language the school can attract and what immersion teachers they can recruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

How would cutting immersion save money?

-Parents are responsible for transporting their OOB kids so there's no bussing provided.

-Kids would be educated in another classroom if they weren't in immersion so you aren't reducing needed staff

-They're taught the same materials only in the target language so there isn't any additional supplies needed.

What extra money is spent?

At our LI school there are approximately 8 FTE on language immersion class. The class sizes range from 12-20. If there wasn’t language immersion 1/2 those kids would go back to base and the other 6-10 kids would be added to each grade class, all those teachers and classrooms are extra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

Yeah JIP at GFES should be removed. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

I have long hear rumors that the program was going to be cut at GFES because it was so small. If it is true, and I believe the posters that I have seen post, that the number of kids completing the program drops to numbers under 15, the minimum size of a class, on a regular basis then the program should be dropped. Fox Mill’s JI program has 2 full classes with over 20 kids finishing in both classes in 6th grade. The Carson JI class is full. The program has plenty of kids from Fox Mill and out of boundary. It is a popular program.

I have no problem with schools limiting the program to kids in boundary when the schools are close to or over max capacity, the school doesn’t have space for more kids. Or if the school is able to fill the program from its base. The fact is, there are wait lists for most of the immersion programs. There is an interest in the option. I would think that it would be a good idea to expand the program because there are people interested in it and studies show that these programs can benefit kids. It is not a great fit for every kid but it works for a lot of kids.

[Anonymous]

All special programs have extra costs - training, central office staff, learning materials and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All special programs have extra costs - training, central office staff, learning materials and resources.

+1. And, most of those extra costs are more than people realize. Especially at the Central Office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

Yeah JIP at GFES should be removed. Unbelievable.

So GFES is already under capacity in general. The kid population decline in GF combined with the horrendous commute even from Herndon. There were 61 that graduated and out of them 6 were JIP. 10% of the class. 1st grade started with a full 32 and a slow decline from that part. The parent and student needs to commit to make it to the end. 10-20% seems reasonable for a JIP program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live between a title 1 ES school and another ES school where close to 90% of the kids are not caucasian and english is a second language. They both have immersion...and the PP above is correct, immersion at these schools is just a bridge to learn english for these kids.

But it is often sold as a way for kids to learn a foreign language. But just a one look at the classrooms and you will quickly see its 25 hispanic kids and 2 non hispanic kids.

However, I will say the real goal of these programs is to help the hispanic kids learn English and that seems to work really well!

That is totally not what is supposed to be about it's not supposed to insulate the esol students from learning English wtf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All special programs have extra costs - training, central office staff, learning materials and resources.

The cost of all special programs is listed in the FCPS program budget.

In FY2025, language immersion cost $5 million out of the total $3,061,733,993 instructional program budget. That is, immersion was 0.15% of the instructional program budget.

Immersion consisted of 38 instructional positions out of 24,113 total FCPS positions.

You are very, very stupid if you think immersion is a significant expense or if you think killing it will save money. There are many other much more expensive programs in the budget that could be cut.