Charter School board is approving new schools!

[Anonymous]

If immersion --> bilingualism elevates a child's cognitive skills so measurably and reliably, why is it that none of the bilingual kids I know personally (and know well ) are scholastically superior? That's the piece I can't reconcile.

I know what "the studies" like the one upthread conclude. I don't need a bunch of new URLs offered -- I've skimmed the data. Then I consider the bilingual kids I know (Spanish Russian, Japanese and mandarin/Cantonese) and I'm not seeing it. Not in their grades, achievements or class standing.

This is middle school by the way -- maybe those slam dunk cognitive payouts happen later, on the SAT and college sweepstakes?

[Anonymous]

or maybe you are just a pompous ass.

[Anonymous]

Eh, I am a NP and also not on the immersion bandwagon. I do speak a second language fairly well...started learning in high school, bachelors in college, more in grad school. There is plenty of time to learn a language, but there is a timetable for the basics, and for now that is my focus for my DCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

NP here. I don't think the poster was saying that it's impossible. But everyone does not want their kid in a language immersion school. I personally did not want my child in an immersion school because said child gets bored easily, and enjoys constant change. I didn't want to risk her failing in school because she didn't enjoy the language being taught. I have no problems with my child learning a language as an add on in school (as she is). I just wouldn't want it to be the focus. I think it's great that there are different styles and opportunities of learning in the district. And I don't see one being more effective then the other. You just have to choose what's best for your child.

Charters are specialty schools. No was "has" to attend them. Everyone gets a general neighborhood school to which they may send their kids, or they can apply OOB to other schools or move IB for another school.

If you want a charter that is not language immersion, then you can put in the 4+ years with 10-15 other people get an application together and have it approved by the charter board.

Oh, right -- and in DC, much of the time the neighborhood school is crappy and playing the lottery for a charter is the only solution, short of moving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

NP here. I don't think the poster was saying that it's impossible. But everyone does not want their kid in a language immersion school. I personally did not want my child in an immersion school because said child gets bored easily, and enjoys constant change. I didn't want to risk her failing in school because she didn't enjoy the language being taught. I have no problems with my child learning a language as an add on in school (as she is). I just wouldn't want it to be the focus. I think it's great that there are different styles and opportunities of learning in the district. And I don't see one being more effective then the other. You just have to choose what's best for your child.

Charters are specialty schools. No was "has" to attend them. Everyone gets a general neighborhood school to which they may send their kids, or they can apply OOB to other schools or move IB for another school.

If you want a charter that is not language immersion, then you can put in the 4+ years with 10-15 other people get an application together and have it approved by the charter board.

Oh, right -- and in DC, much of the time the neighborhood school is crappy and playing the lottery for a charter is the only solution, short of moving.

Then become a founder of a charter school that has the model you want so you can be guaranteed admission…. Oh wait, that's right, you don't want to do the work. You expect everyone else to do the work for you and will complain ad nauseum on anonymous message boards if they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If immersion --> bilingualism elevates a child's cognitive skills so measurably and reliably, why is it that none of the bilingual kids I know personally (and know well ) are scholastically superior? That's the piece I can't reconcile.

I know what "the studies" like the one upthread conclude. I don't need a bunch of new URLs offered -- I've skimmed the data. Then I consider the bilingual kids I know (Spanish Russian, Japanese and mandarin/Cantonese) and I'm not seeing it. Not in their grades, achievements or class standing.

This is middle school by the way -- maybe those slam dunk cognitive payouts happen later, on the SAT and college sweepstakes?

How bilingual are these kids? I often hear DC parents telling me that their kids are bilingual for having attended X or Y DC immersion language elementary school for however many years, without much target language support at home, if any. In immigrant families, children are often raised to understand everyday conversation in the native tongue, while the parents don't insist that their offspring speak it. This approach limits the kids' cognitive boost. Most of the truly bilingual and bilterate children with well-educated parents I run into impress me.

Back to the subject at hand - much of what's in the Washington Global proposal sounds too good to be true. They're all over the map in what they're hoping to achieve in an already crowded field. The city would be much better off putting resources into beefing up Oyster's middle school, and creating a charter-DCPS hybrid at DCI with a test-in option for bilingual kids speaking Spanish, French or Chinese (including dialect transition support, as in several MoCo middle schools).

[Anonymous]

the charter/dcps hybrid was tried twice. both times dcps walked away from the idea. i know the dci folks were very frustrated with dcps not being willing/able to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If immersion --> bilingualism elevates a child's cognitive skills so measurably and reliably, why is it that none of the bilingual kids I know personally (and know well ) are scholastically superior? That's the piece I can't reconcile.

I know what "the studies" like the one upthread conclude. I don't need a bunch of new URLs offered -- I've skimmed the data. Then I consider the bilingual kids I know (Spanish Russian, Japanese and mandarin/Cantonese) and I'm not seeing it. Not in their grades, achievements or class standing.

This is middle school by the way -- maybe those slam dunk cognitive payouts happen later, on the SAT and college sweepstakes?

How bilingual are these kids? I often hear DC parents telling me that their kids are bilingual for having attended X or Y DC immersion language elementary school for however many years, without much target language support at home, if any. In immigrant families, children are often raised to understand everyday conversation in the native tongue, while the parents don't insist that their offspring speak it. This approach limits the kids' cognitive boost. Most of the truly bilingual and bilterate children with well-educated parents I run into impress me.

Back to the subject at hand - much of what's in the Washington Global proposal sounds too good to be true. They're all over the map in what they're hoping to achieve in an already crowded field. The city would be much better off putting resources into beefing up Oyster's middle school, and creating a charter-DCPS hybrid at DCI with a test-in option for bilingual kids speaking Spanish, French or Chinese (including dialect transition support, as in several MoCo middle schools).

Washington Global isn't a bilingual school. Not sure why you think they are all over the map...they are using a unit model to teach languages, math and science.

Did you even read their application?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the charter/dcps hybrid was tried twice. both times dcps walked away from the idea. i know the dci folks were very frustrated with dcps not being willing/able to make it happen.

I would love to know more about this hybrid idea and what was tried. It sounds like a terrible idea from the charter end of things, because as long as a facility is available, what is the benefit of a charter partnering with DCPS??

And the idea of DCI partnering with DCPS is the worst ever, given that DCI is already a collaboration of 5 elementary schools trying to figure out how to combine cultures, students, missions and language instruction into a cohesive middle and high school. What would DCPS add to that other than problems with school culture (not because DCPS has all bad school culture, but it would be like a 6th culture to add in depending on the school)?

Where/when/how were DCPS/charter hybrids tried in the past? And what was on the table for DCI and DCPS to do together that DCPS walked away from?

[Anonymous]

DCPS offered DCI Roosevelt and wanted to feed in dual language schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS offered DCI Roosevelt and wanted to feed in dual language schools.

Is there really confirmation out there that DCPS really concretely offered this? Or it was something under consideration but never officially offered? I just have a hard time believing DCPS would risk the political backlash of millions and millions of dollars to renovate Roosevelt just to give it to a charter (even if bilingual DCPS schools could feed into it).

And more than anything, aside from desperation for space, I can't imagine why DCI was interested. What would the benefit to the school itself be of that arrangment?? (Again, other than having the building)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the charter/dcps hybrid was tried twice. both times dcps walked away from the idea. i know the dci folks were very frustrated with dcps not being willing/able to make it happen.

I would love to know more about this hybrid idea and what was tried. It sounds like a terrible idea from the charter end of things, because as long as a facility is available, what is the benefit of a charter partnering with DCPS??

And the idea of DCI partnering with DCPS is the worst ever, given that DCI is already a collaboration of 5 elementary schools trying to figure out how to combine cultures, students, missions and language instruction into a cohesive middle and high school. What would DCPS add to that other than problems with school culture (not because DCPS has all bad school culture, but it would be like a 6th culture to add in depending on the school)?

Where/when/how were DCPS/charter hybrids tried in the past? And what was on the table for DCI and DCPS to do together that DCPS walked away from?

I can think of an excellent reason for creating strong DCPS-charter hybrids emphasizing foreign language instruction. Alternatively, beefed up DCPS programs would do the job. In a nutshell, charters don't allow students to test in. In other cities, even Rockville, bilingual and bilterate kids can test into K-8 immersion language schools, at least to replace drop-outs and to enter special lotteries for native speakers. You also have test-in magnet middle schools for advanced students, like the humanities program at Eastern MS in Silver Spring. This program teaches several languages (non-immersion) to 6th-8th graders at an accelerated pace, admitting no more than 20% of applicants county-wide.

What you have in DC public are charter language immersion schools with few native speakers, or advanced students either. The native speaker deficit isn't just seen at Yu Ying, the most egregious case, you find it at Tyler SI, Stokes and others. Oyster's middle school has many native speakers, but few advanced students. Because DC charter law doesn't allow students to test in, DCI is going to exclude potential students who speak, read and write Spanish, French and Chinese as well or better than some of their students.

This makes little sense when bilingual and biliterate students, and "gifted" students, would be an asset to any middle or high school teaching foreign languages, "new blood" as it were. I hate it when political goals (avoiding cherry picking students) trump common sense and educational goals.

I'm not excited about DCI, because I can't see it being all that great with few native speakers. I'm not excitied about "Global," because I can't see it being all that wonderful without the high standards that come from admitting a critical mass of strong students. When is DC going to reach for the stars where foreign language instruction goes? Even Deal doesn't offer advanced classes outside of math.

[Anonymous]

methinks you're not "excited" because you're expecting a private school education where everything is controlled for maximum snowflake enrichment. Go get one.

[Anonymous]

Lay off the race baiting. Lots of US cities offer elementary and middle school test-in programs, including for language immersion. Just not this one. After all, you need to work at staying the bottom of the bottom of the bottom.

[Anonymous]

PS. We used to have black immigrant neighbors from South America, both lawyers. They moved to Fairfax last year, partly to enroll their kid in a test-in Spanish immersion public middle school program. Too much like private school for you, I know. Shame on Fairfax.