Anonymous wrote:I wish language immersion would go away.

And, AAP centers.

Get rid of all specialized programs (except Special needs) which require transporation. It would save money on transportation and help create community schools.

Anonymous wrote:The primary benefits of immersion and early language acquisition for kids aren't because they will use the language for professional or other benefit in the future, nor necessarily even retain any degree of mastery or proficiency, but simply for the durable overall cognitive and executive function benefits that the experience conveys.

This.

Anonymous wrote:I've heard that, rather than undertake an expansion or boundary change at Kent Gardens to address the overcrowding there, FCPS may be allocating more immersion seats to students whose base school is Kent Gardens. The intent would be to reduce the school's overall enrollment by reducing the number of students from other schools, while keeping the immersion program roughly the same size.

Has anyone else heard this? Is this really fair, since Kent Gardens is the only school left in FCPS with a French immersion program in ES?

This happened to Herndon’s immersion program when it moved from French to Spanish. Now only neighborhood children participate in the program. The upside was shorter carpool / parent pick up lines. 🤷‍♀️

I wish language immersion would go away.

I don’t think anyone from Franklin Sherman would mind adding some kids from Kent Gardens. FS has space and it would actually make the occasional combination classes there less likely. As for the MCA, they are mostly older people north of 123 zoned to Churchill Road and Spring Hill.

Do people really say “poors of McLean” out loud or online? Nothing about this area would surprise me.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like they could also move part of Kent Gardens to Franklin Sherman. That way KG enrollment would be reduced but more kids from other schools would still have a shot at the immersion program.

This! There are over 1000 kids at KGES and barely 400 at FS! The square footage of the schools are similar. But Franklin Sherman is the darling of the MCA so it will never change because only the ‘poors of McLean’ go to KGES 🙄. (I’m a KG parent of 10 years!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

It seems a bit of an ego thing for a parent of a 4th grader, as I’m sure if there is no family connection, then the child likely would choose something different. No child chooses Manderin Chinese at that age otherwise, is my guess. And likely French is pushed by an over zealous parent seeking their child to work with the French Embassy (not much more).

I’m the PP with kids who went to KG and didn’t do immersion. I have never found people are status’y or cliquey about it. As an in boundary person, I think most people who choose to do it and l would attend KG anyway are like why not? At first glance, it seems worth doing if your kid can become bilingual. I’m just not convinced it achieves those results.

Our school is a LI program and people choose to participate based on if they think their kid will be fine in the program, it is not a big deal. It is something that is available at the school so why not take advantage of it. Kids move from the LI to the Gen Ed program because it is not a good fit and no one cares. I don't think many of the parents expect their kid to be fluent at the end of the 6 years, the kids are learning the language in math and science so that is going to be the focus of the language. I like that it requires my kid to think more about what he is doing in those areas because he needs to be able to do it in the language and translate it into English. I expect that he will know the alphabet and some of the basics when he gets to Middle School but they are not teaching the grammar or anything overly formal with the language.

I think there are benefits to the program even if he doesn't become fluent. It is available and he enjoys it, so why not participate?

Our school is not over crowded so the out of boundary families don't bother me. I can see where the program would be more irksome if it was leading to overcrowding at my school. Then I think it is a smart call to change the enrollment to kids in boundary only, which is what Kent Gardens seems to be discussing doing.

The primary benefits of immersion and early language acquisition for kids aren't because they will use the language for professional or other benefit in the future, nor necessarily even retain any degree of mastery or proficiency, but simply for the durable overall cognitive and executive function benefits that the experience conveys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

It seems a bit of an ego thing for a parent of a 4th grader, as I’m sure if there is no family connection, then the child likely would choose something different. No child chooses Manderin Chinese at that age otherwise, is my guess. And likely French is pushed by an over zealous parent seeking their child to work with the French Embassy (not much more).

I’m the PP with kids who went to KG and didn’t do immersion. I have never found people are status’y or cliquey about it. As an in boundary person, I think most people who choose to do it and l would attend KG anyway are like why not? At first glance, it seems worth doing if your kid can become bilingual. I’m just not convinced it achieves those results.

I wish the French immersion would get canceled at KG and just let ithe school serve the neighborhood kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

Doesn’t sound too different from parents talking about their kids being in AAP, or at TJ, or on an IB diploma track.

And the kids still have better foreign language skills heading into middle school than the kids who haven’t been in an immersion program, even if they aren’t fluent.

I teach at a middle school that has former ES immersion kids. If they dont speak the language at home, the kids arent even leaps and bound ahead. It gets you an extra year of language before HS. It costs $$ because the upper elementary immersion classes are smaller than gen ed in most cases (you have to test in after 2nd grade and some kids leave for AAP/a better fit) and the language classes at the MS level are separate and never full. It also is really darn hard to find a part-time German/Japanese/non-Spanish teacher to teach the class in MS (never more than 1-2 sections). And yes, immersion is probably even more cliquey than AAP. It should be eliminated.

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

Doesn’t sound too different from parents talking about their kids being in AAP, or at TJ, or on an IB diploma track.

And the kids still have better foreign language skills heading into middle school than the kids who haven’t been in an immersion program, even if they aren’t fluent.

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.

It seems a bit of an ego thing for a parent of a 4th grader, as I’m sure if there is no family connection, then the child likely would choose something different. No child chooses Manderin Chinese at that age otherwise, is my guess. And likely French is pushed by an over zealous parent seeking their child to work with the French Embassy (not much more).

I worked at a different immersion school, and I noticed that the immersion kids only play with their classmates at recess. By the upper grades, it can get tough socially, because it’s been the same kids year after year. Many parents seem very entitled about the whole thing. If you ask a kid where they go to school and the parent feels compelled to tell you that the kid is in immersion, it’s a turn-off. It might come out in further conversation about the kid’s interests, but just let that happen. At my school, they don’t really seem to learn to speak the language well, and the middle school language teachers report that the kids have weak skills.

It’s a pain in the neck for scheduling. I don’t really see the advantage. I’ve been in meetings where the kid is doing poorly, but the patent refuses to take them out of immersion, even if they can’t keep up, and it’s a mess.

I’m sure it’s nice for some kids. I’d be very interested in a study of how many kids were in it and if they feel it was worth it after they get to their professional lives.