The new research doesn't surprise me. UMC parents are always looking for some gimmicky quick fix approach to helping their kids get an edge.

The benefits of bilingualism, while real, have long been exaggerated in this country and city!

Anonymous wrote:When I was a kid I took French one day a week for fun. I later took French in middle and high school and then stopped. Later I tried to pick it up again and sort of managed but didn’t commit. At some point I switched to Spanish which I still speak and my kids are in bilingual school now.

My point is, exposure isn’t a waste. I got to love French for a while, then love Spanish, then eventually value languages and cultural exposure as a primary part of my family’s life. But, what my kids are getting is clearly superior to my exposure and their accents will always be better than mine. I think you can’t go wrong.

Yes, the cultural exposure is also a valuable part, even if the cognitive benefits are "overblown" as a PP said (although I'd like to see a source for that claim).

When I was a kid I took French one day a week for fun. I later took French in middle and high school and then stopped. Later I tried to pick it up again and sort of managed but didn’t commit. At some point I switched to Spanish which I still speak and my kids are in bilingual school now.

My point is, exposure isn’t a waste. I got to love French for a while, then love Spanish, then eventually value languages and cultural exposure as a primary part of my family’s life. But, what my kids are getting is clearly superior to my exposure and their accents will always be better than mine. I think you can’t go wrong.

Anonymous wrote:+100. OP, don't fall for language instruction for little kids that isn't immersion, gimmicky, waste of time and money.

This. The CMI families who are so proud of their kids taking one day a week of mandarin and thinking that means the school is “advanced”

There's a corpus of new research showing that the cognitive gains of bilingualism just aren't as great as once believed.

I'm not convinced that having kids dabble in learning languages pays off - the cost in time is too high.

For us, it's learn to speak a language well and stick with it through the teenage years or don't bother.

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with the above.

I was taught a European language (not Spanish) in school a few hours a week from age 4-10. The fact is, although I have a facility for languages, and spoke this language OK at age 10, I've retained very little of it because I hardly used it later on. I feel like my time learning the language at those ages would have been far better spent learning something more useful that might have stuck, e.g. geography or music.

I then started learning a difficult Asian tonal language, spoken where my family was living, at age 9. Now, in middle-age, I am almost fluent in the Asian language after having studied in seriously (mostly for the joy of it) in middle school, high school, college and for work. I'm told that my accent is pretty close to that of a native speaker.

Don't kid yourself. Little kids can forget languages almost as easily as they pick them up. If the language isn't spoken at home, and it isn't Spanish, I wouldn't sacrifice instruction in other subjects, including English, pretending that things will work out. Not in DC.

Keep in mind that that second language at ages 4-10, even if not retained now, likely still set the stage for later language acquisition. Intensive language exposure changes the brain, and those differences may make the brain different from a monolingual child's brain.

Also, many people play an instrument for several years, yet can't play as adults and wish they stuck with it. I don't think you can say with certainty that music would necessarily have "stuck" (although perhaps there would be other cognitive benefits, similar to language acquisition).

Disagree with the above.

I was taught a European language (not Spanish) in school a few hours a week from age 4-10. The fact is, although I have a facility for languages, and spoke this language OK at age 10, I've retained very little of it because I hardly used it later on. I feel like my time learning the language at those ages would have been far better spent learning something more useful that might have stuck, e.g. geography or music.

I then started learning a difficult Asian tonal language, spoken where my family was living, at age 9. Now, in middle-age, I am almost fluent in the Asian language after having studied in seriously (mostly for the joy of it) in middle school, high school, college and for work. I'm told that my accent is pretty close to that of a native speaker.

Don't kid yourself. Little kids can forget languages almost as easily as they pick them up. If the language isn't spoken at home, and it isn't Spanish, I wouldn't sacrifice instruction in other subjects, including English, pretending that things will work out. Not in DC.

Anonymous wrote:+100. OP, don't fall for language instruction for little kids that isn't immersion, gimmicky, waste of time and money.

We are sending DC to Spanish 3 times a week and started when he was 4.5. Most of his Spanish came from tv and I know a few words.
While they do start languages at 9 in Europe, I wish they would start in daycare at age 3-7.
I took 5 languages at school in a country that has only one official language; so it's not like I heard the languages daily. I didn't. I had to simply learn the words and get the feel of the language. All I can say is that the earlier the better: be it Spanish classes.
DC is also in bilingual class. It really helps that other kids are good at Spanish.

Anonymous wrote:I know a lot of the thinking is pretty black and white here--immersion school/OPOL, or nothing.

+1.

It's a matter of scaling your expectations with the effort/resources (including schools) you are able or willing to put in, and taking into account your child's inclinations and abilities. That's all okay. If your goal is to have your child be fluent, it is true that you have to put in significant efforts at home and cannot rely completely on the school. If your goal is for your child to have a foundation in the language and a positive attitude toward the language and the culture, you can achieve that goal with less effort. That's great too.

I notice that, at least in DCPS elementaries, language instruction is generally 45 minutes a week. That, I think, is pointless for actual learning and retention.

We toggle between three languages at home. We invest significantly in making the minority languages a normal part of daily life: conversation, books, cartoons, cultural celebrations. Obviously it is easier if a parent has at least some ease in the language, but it is absolutely possible to learn the language along with your child. It is a commitment, though.

I know a lot of the thinking is pretty black and white here--immersion school/OPOL, or nothing. But I think that if a family is particularly committed, there are other ways to get your kids significant exposure. Your kid will likely not be fluent, but some exposure is better than none and can set the stage for more intensive language study later on.

We speak English at home, and home configuration meant we couldn't do an au pair. We now have a child in an immersion school, but prior to this, we did Saturday classes from age 2, 3x week exposure in neighborhood school from PK3, occasional summer immersion camps, and cartoons in the language. If no parents speak the language (or just took it in middle/high school as I did), you should be willing to learn along w/kid.

+100. OP, don't fall for language instruction for little kids that isn't immersion, gimmicky, waste of time and money.

It takes either what PP recommends or doing one parent one language from the start. (That assumes one of you is fluent/native in a language other than English).

I wouldn't bother with language study that isn't immersion before age 9. Little kids learn languages fairly easily through at least 50% immersion in their daily lives, not via an hour or two a week of study. We're raising our children bilingual in a language one of us speaks fairly well, hosting au pairs who speak the language as native speakers year in and year out for nearly a decade now. Most of our mono-lingual DC pals don't seem to have a clue what it takes to raise a fully bilingual child. No idea at all. Dabbling in languages instruction for little kids doesn't pay off, parents just think it does. In Europe, where I lived for part of my childhood, the highest-performing national school systems (e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, the Nordic countries) start teaching languages around age 9, several times a week.

So I understand that it is really hard to get into the DC language immersion schools. I noticed in some of my tours that many of the schools teach a language to students as well (but not in a focused way like the schools that specialize in it). What do parents do to ensure their kids learn a language besides English? Private lessons? Keep trying for the schools that specialize in this?