FCPS Immersion Program efficacy

[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.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

In the case of kids already fluent in the language - this helps and hurts. If the fluent kids can talk to the non-fluent kids in the target language then that helps acquisition a lot. But why are they in immersion if English is the prime focus? They should just stick English. I think immersion can be fixed but you got to use tricks used by bi or tri-lingual countries. "Book Learning" your way to a language isn't the easiest way.

I didn’t say English was the prime focus. Prime focus is brain development, not a language. Also, our El Salvadoran and nicaruagan neighbor kids are bilingual. This is often the case over several generations of immigrants.the kids pick up the language faster that the parents and often become the translators. So they are bilingual and on the playground they tend to speak English. My point is, no one is going to want to run around on the playground policing kids’ language.

Immersion is two hours a day in the target language even in 2-way immersion. Again, it isn’t for language acquisition. If your kid becomes somewhat fluent, that’s a happy accident.

The only way to get around this would be to not allow bilingual kids into the program. That would force kids to use the other language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All four of my kids did the partial langauge immersion program at our neighborhood school. We chose to stay in the program instead of move to an AAP center when our oldest was in third grade. We were lucky enough that our school introduced a local AAP program when our second oldest was in third grade, so our younger three kids have gotten the best of both worlds. My two oldest kids (now young adults) are fluent, my third kid is conversational (and has taken the target language classes throughout high school). Our youngest is still in the E.S. immersion program. If you want your kid to learn more than just the vocab or receptive language skills, you really have to support the target language outside of the classroom (our kids' teachers offered suggestions when we asked since we don't speak the language at home), and your kid would benefit from continuing to take the language in middle and high school. That said, vocab and receptive language skills are also great outcomes! It just takes work outside of a classroom to achieve more than that.

Agree. 2-way immersion parent whose kids are in HS now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

In the case of kids already fluent in the language - this helps and hurts. If the fluent kids can talk to the non-fluent kids in the target language then that helps acquisition a lot. But why are they in immersion if English is the prime focus? They should just stick English. I think immersion can be fixed but you got to use tricks used by bi or tri-lingual countries. "Book Learning" your way to a language isn't the easiest way.

Because the goal for immersion isn’t fluency. It is brain development. Fluency when it happens is a happy accident in ES.

Source?

Google is your friend. You can start with “is immersion more about proficiency or brain development” as your input. Immersion gives your kids a foundation for language proficiency but not proficiency.