Anonymous wrote:Undeniably true, yet Congress won't tweak the Federal law on charters to permit two lotteries for immersion schools. Real myopia on the part of lawmakers.

Here in DC, overall, push factors are as strong, or stronger, in drawing parents to immersion charters as pull factors. The overwhelming majority of YY, LAMB, MV and Stokes families are escaping low performing in-boundary schools. Few families choose immersion charters over schools that are strongly high SES. The immersion charters mostly attract parents who wouldn't in fact go for immersion if they had a strong in-boundary school. Oyster is by far DC's strongest immersion program partly because the Oyster families have a strong/mostly high SES non-immersion alternative (Eaton).

This is absolutely not true. Our IB school is Lafayette. We know three other long term YY families in our neighborhood who also passed Lafayette for YY.

The RAND Corporation published a brief on this .

Their conclusion:

1) Dual-Language Immersion Programs Raise Student Achievement in English (by upper elementary)

2) The most successful programs have equal numbers of native speakers and non-native speakers.

3) No significant difference between partial immersion and full immersion

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9903.html

Yet another dumb and disrespectful language immersion thread. How many do we need on DCUM?

If immersion parents who aren't bilingual want to believe that a little immersion goes a long way, let em. We have much better things to worry about in this city.

If you're serious about language immersion, you raise your kids to speak a 2nd language at home, and hope for some support from a school(s)s.

OP, my one personal anecdote is that because we moved, our younger child isn't in an immersion school like our older two children were through elementary for one and third grade for another.

He's only four but he has definitely progressed in English at a quicker pace than my older two did at that age. Since this is just based on one kid, it could be that he's just more verbal, or he's the youngest and has two older siblings to teach him or we stopped serving the kids lead paint for dinner. Who knows?

But I suspect it's because he's in an English-only environment. As PPs have pointed out, the dual language kids certainly catch up later on. I wish our youngest was in a dual-language school.

Anonymous wrote:Undeniably true, yet Congress won't tweak the Federal law on charters to permit two lotteries for immersion schools. Real myopia on the part of lawmakers.

Here in DC, overall, push factors are as strong, or stronger, in drawing parents to immersion charters as pull factors. The overwhelming majority of YY, LAMB, MV and Stokes families are escaping low performing in-boundary schools. Few families choose immersion charters over schools that are strongly high SES. The immersion charters mostly attract parents who wouldn't in fact go for immersion if they had a strong in-boundary school. Oyster is by far DC's strongest immersion program partly because the Oyster families have a strong/mostly high SES non-immersion alternative (Eaton).

What the hell does this have to do with the question in the post? WHY MUST YOU ALL KEEP DOING THIS? Can we ever stay on topic? How did we get to talking about how dc WOTP schools are better than these immersion schools? And how primarily only parents with poor in boundary schools send their kids to these schools? Really, WTF does that have to do with the question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP asked whether doing a full immersion program (like Yu Ying has in PK) inhibits kids' ability to thoroughly learn English and y'all just took it and

Every dam time!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so annoyed with you all on this dam forum. You take basic questions and run with them and turn them into racist or ridiculous posts that have nothing to do with the initial question. It really is out of hand and annoying as shit. This forum is beginning to be a joke

Anonymous wrote:OP asked whether doing a full immersion program (like Yu Ying has in PK) inhibits kids' ability to thoroughly learn English and y'all just took it and

OP asked whether doing a full immersion program (like Yu Ying has in PK) inhibits kids' ability to thoroughly learn English and y'all just took it and

Undeniably true, yet Congress won't tweak the Federal law on charters to permit two lotteries for immersion schools. Real myopia on the part of lawmakers.

Here in DC, overall, push factors are as strong, or stronger, in drawing parents to immersion charters as pull factors. The overwhelming majority of YY, LAMB, MV and Stokes families are escaping low performing in-boundary schools. Few families choose immersion charters over schools that are strongly high SES. The immersion charters mostly attract parents who wouldn't in fact go for immersion if they had a strong in-boundary school. Oyster is by far DC's strongest immersion program partly because the Oyster families have a strong/mostly high SES non-immersion alternative (Eaton).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

Thank you! That ex-YY poster seems to feel that all is for naught if kids aren't 100% bilingual by middle school. I think the consistent exposure to another language and culture is wonderful for various reasons even if full fluency is not reached. Some of these kids may go and to do more language study, study abroad, etc. in high school and beyond. And there still may be cognitive benefits to early exposure even if they don't continue to pursue the language after YY. So for their families, it may be worth it nonetheless.

Also agree with this. Our kids have done very well at YY, and get 99% on MAP, PARCC etc. So the education is fine. Anyone thinking their kids will be fluent is missing the boat--it is no secret that immersion only works if there are enough native speakers, and this will never happen in a lottery system with so few Mandarin speaking kids in DC. But, this much exposure to Chinese (or any foreign language) is great in all sorts of ways.

Don't agree that the dearth of Mandarin speaking kids is the real problem. Standards for language learning in the DCI feeders just aren't high. Taking the immersion seriously is presented as optional to families from the get go. The charters fork out for fancier and fancier facilities (gardens etc.) rather than full immersion experiences, e.g. summer camps. There's no push for the kids to speak well, and little effort to develop ties with DC immigrant communities speaking the languages and celebrating the cultures taught. Hiring admins who don't speak the languages of immersion is acceptable. Many parents would work harder at immersion if they were expected to.

That may all be true but if you look at the research, presence of native speakers is the number one predictor of success by non-native speakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

Thank you! That ex-YY poster seems to feel that all is for naught if kids aren't 100% bilingual by middle school. I think the consistent exposure to another language and culture is wonderful for various reasons even if full fluency is not reached. Some of these kids may go and to do more language study, study abroad, etc. in high school and beyond. And there still may be cognitive benefits to early exposure even if they don't continue to pursue the language after YY. So for their families, it may be worth it nonetheless.

Also agree with this. Our kids have done very well at YY, and get 99% on MAP, PARCC etc. So the education is fine. Anyone thinking their kids will be fluent is missing the boat--it is no secret that immersion only works if there are enough native speakers, and this will never happen in a lottery system with so few Mandarin speaking kids in DC. But, this much exposure to Chinese (or any foreign language) is great in all sorts of ways.

Don't agree that the dearth of Mandarin speaking kids is the real problem. Standards for language learning in the DCI feeders just aren't high. Taking the immersion seriously is presented as optional to families from the get go. The charters fork out for fancier and fancier facilities (gardens etc.) rather than full immersion experiences, e.g. summer camps. There's no push for the kids to speak well, and little effort to develop ties with DC immigrant communities speaking the languages and celebrating the cultures taught. Hiring admins who don't speak the languages of immersion is acceptable. Many parents would work harder at immersion if they were expected to.

Charters in DC are supposed to first and foremost be schools that do better than traditional public schools and get more kids to proficiency or better on PARCC (used to be DC CAS).

They are not at all judged by the charter board or anyone else on fluency or biliteracy. We can debate whether that is a good or a bad thing, but target language fluency and literacy are seen as icing on the cake, something that is nice to have in addition to the core education in English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

Thank you! That ex-YY poster seems to feel that all is for naught if kids aren't 100% bilingual by middle school. I think the consistent exposure to another language and culture is wonderful for various reasons even if full fluency is not reached. Some of these kids may go and to do more language study, study abroad, etc. in high school and beyond. And there still may be cognitive benefits to early exposure even if they don't continue to pursue the language after YY. So for their families, it may be worth it nonetheless.

Also agree with this. Our kids have done very well at YY, and get 99% on MAP, PARCC etc. So the education is fine. Anyone thinking their kids will be fluent is missing the boat--it is no secret that immersion only works if there are enough native speakers, and this will never happen in a lottery system with so few Mandarin speaking kids in DC. But, this much exposure to Chinese (or any foreign language) is great in all sorts of ways.

Don't agree that the dearth of Mandarin speaking kids is the real problem. Standards for language learning in the DCI feeders just aren't high. Taking the immersion seriously is presented as optional to families from the get go. The charters fork out for fancier and fancier facilities (gardens etc.) rather than full immersion experiences, e.g. summer camps. There's no push for the kids to speak well, and little effort to develop ties with DC immigrant communities speaking the languages and celebrating the cultures taught. Hiring admins who don't speak the languages of immersion is acceptable. Many parents would work harder at immersion if they were expected to.

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

OK, but let's not whitewash the situation. Totally fluent isn't the goal. Some of us are not impressed with how well DCI kids can speak the languages they've learning for years and years.

I'm Canadian and speak French decently. When I visited DCI recently and tried to communicate in basic French with a dozen students I was introduced to as "advanced French learners," I was amazed by how poorly they spoke and seemed to understand. I was told that most had started learning French at age 4-6.

OK, the charters can't recruit native speaking students as they'd like. But couldn't they LINK UP with fluent peers elsewhere using technology? Link up with heritage school students in the DC suburbs? Fundraise to get kids to full immersion summer camps?

What good does it do the kids to pretend that that 50% immersion is working if it's....not!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

Thank you! That ex-YY poster seems to feel that all is for naught if kids aren't 100% bilingual by middle school. I think the consistent exposure to another language and culture is wonderful for various reasons even if full fluency is not reached. Some of these kids may go and to do more language study, study abroad, etc. in high school and beyond. And there still may be cognitive benefits to early exposure even if they don't continue to pursue the language after YY. So for their families, it may be worth it nonetheless.

Also agree with this. Our kids have done very well at YY, and get 99% on MAP, PARCC etc. So the education is fine. Anyone thinking their kids will be fluent is missing the boat--it is no secret that immersion only works if there are enough native speakers, and this will never happen in a lottery system with so few Mandarin speaking kids in DC. But, this much exposure to Chinese (or any foreign language) is great in all sorts of ways.

Anonymous wrote:These threads seem to gravitate toward the idea that if a child doesn't become totally fluent, immersion programs aren't worth it. In my opinion, the exposure is fantastic for a kid regardless of the degree of fluency. I started French when I was 8 and didn't have anything like immersion, but taking those classes gave me a facility in French that I was able to develop as an adult, and a general comfort with learning languages that opened a lot of doors for me in my life. So as a parent of a child in an immersion school, I'm not that concerned about whether my kid is fluent by 5th grade -- I am just happy that he will have this tool in his arsenal.

totally 2nd this.

I am 9:11 who's child is learning three languages. I simply want to point out some are harder than the others. DD is also exposed to Cantonese and French. She loves to sing Cantonese and French songs even though doesn't understand the meanings. She learned to tell the difference between Korean and Japanese so she knows they are not Chinese languages. Any exposure is good.

I didn't study English until MS, and was not able to carry a conversation until moved to the US for graduate school, but now speak it fine.

OP, try your best to support the learning, don't fuss about kids not being totally fluent or even sounding native, as long as you try your best.