Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that most of these children do not come from homes that foster academics and assimilation. My grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago at age 7 and was instantly put into public school in the U.S. He knew zero English. But his family didn't immigrate to the U.S. for him to fail in school, so he picked it up.

Even more recently, my good friend as a kid (who is now in her 30s) moved from Germany to the US in 2nd grade. She spoke no English whatsoever upon arrival but was speaking meaningfully within a month and fluent with virtually no accent by mid 3rd grade. I have family friends whose kids are in their teens who were stationed in Germany and sent their kids to German schools. They picked up the language and are fluent after being stationed there for 2 years.

Immersion has been shown time and time again to be the most effective way for kids to learn a language. ESOL students should 100% be in mainstream classrooms, there just needs to be stronger expectations that they pick up English for use at school and that also needs to be communicated to their families.

Totally agree.

My young adult kid did a study abroad for a year. Within 6 months they were fluent in the language, reading and writing. It was complete immersion.

Kids pick it up even quicker.

We are doing a disservice to these non English speaking kids by not requiring them to speak English from the start.

Our acceptance and accommodation is setting them up for failure.

I'm a big proponent of immersion, too, because I lived it. But I think it only works well when parents push their kids to be academically focused and can make themselves available to help, especially if they speak a little bit of English. I don't think it works for families that are having trouble making ends meet. Within a year, I was excelling in school, and in two years, I was part of the gifted program. But that would have never happened if my parents hadn't had the time to help me at home. I had to take all of my classwork home to complete because I understood nothing. On the weekends, my parents took us kids to the public library to check out books and practice reading. I had to look up EVERY word in the Spanish/English dictionary. It is not easy. Not everyone has support from their parents, either because they have to work multiple jobs to pay the bills or because they don't care much about academics.

Anonymous wrote:At these tax rates, don't be surprised when parents start pushing for more segregation in schools to remove or sequester low-performing ESOL kids. While it will seem harsh, all kids deserve a great education, and none should be held back by classmates that don't speak English or who don't want to learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that most of these children do not come from homes that foster academics and assimilation. My grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago at age 7 and was instantly put into public school in the U.S. He knew zero English. But his family didn't immigrate to the U.S. for him to fail in school, so he picked it up.

Even more recently, my good friend as a kid (who is now in her 30s) moved from Germany to the US in 2nd grade. She spoke no English whatsoever upon arrival but was speaking meaningfully within a month and fluent with virtually no accent by mid 3rd grade. I have family friends whose kids are in their teens who were stationed in Germany and sent their kids to German schools. They picked up the language and are fluent after being stationed there for 2 years.

Immersion has been shown time and time again to be the most effective way for kids to learn a language. ESOL students should 100% be in mainstream classrooms, there just needs to be stronger expectations that they pick up English for use at school and that also needs to be communicated to their families.

Totally agree.

My young adult kid did a study abroad for a year. Within 6 months they were fluent in the language, reading and writing. It was complete immersion.

Kids pick it up even quicker.

We are doing a disservice to these non English speaking kids by not requiring them to speak English from the start.

Our acceptance and accommodation is setting them up for failure.

I'm a big proponent of immersion, too, because I lived it. But I think it only works well when parents push their kids to be academically focused and can make themselves available to help, especially if they speak a little bit of English. I don't think it works for families that are having trouble making ends meet. Within a year, I was excelling in school, and in two years, I was part of the gifted program. But that would have never happened if my parents hadn't had the time to help me at home. I had to take all of my classwork home to complete because I understood nothing. On the weekends, my parents took us kids to the public library to check out books and practice reading. I had to look up EVERY word in the Spanish/English dictionary. It is not easy. Not everyone has support from their parents, either because they have to work multiple jobs to pay the bills or because they don't care much about academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that most of these children do not come from homes that foster academics and assimilation. My grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago at age 7 and was instantly put into public school in the U.S. He knew zero English. But his family didn't immigrate to the U.S. for him to fail in school, so he picked it up.

Even more recently, my good friend as a kid (who is now in her 30s) moved from Germany to the US in 2nd grade. She spoke no English whatsoever upon arrival but was speaking meaningfully within a month and fluent with virtually no accent by mid 3rd grade. I have family friends whose kids are in their teens who were stationed in Germany and sent their kids to German schools. They picked up the language and are fluent after being stationed there for 2 years.

Immersion has been shown time and time again to be the most effective way for kids to learn a language. ESOL students should 100% be in mainstream classrooms, there just needs to be stronger expectations that they pick up English for use at school and that also needs to be communicated to their families.

Totally agree.

My young adult kid did a study abroad for a year. Within 6 months they were fluent in the language, reading and writing. It was complete immersion.

Kids pick it up even quicker.

We are doing a disservice to these non English speaking kids by not requiring them to speak English from the start.

Our acceptance and accommodation is setting them up for failure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids who go to school in Spain or some other country that don't speak the local language must do 6 months of intensive language before they enroll in local schools - not expensive expat schools of course. There is nothing wrong with that.

This is actually a great idea. Have an intensive 6 month immersion classes in English before coming to regular school.

We also need to insist that the parents support this.

Interesting, that some of the immigrant communities do insist their kids learn English. Some don't.

When you go to vote in Fairfax county, you get a ballot with multiple languages. That needs to stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids who go to school in Spain or some other country that don't speak the local language must do 6 months of intensive language before they enroll in local schools - not expensive expat schools of course. There is nothing wrong with that.

This is actually a great idea. Have an intensive 6 month immersion classes in English before coming to regular school.

Anonymous wrote:Kids who go to school in Spain or some other country that don't speak the local language must do 6 months of intensive language before they enroll in local schools - not expensive expat schools of course. There is nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:Segregating by learning skill level allows each group to receive the support best suited to their needs. What benefit is there in placing a Jiffy Lube technician and a NASA aeronautical engineer in the same class, simply for the sake of desegregation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not really fair to the ESOL and SPED students that they are tossed in a class most of the day where they often understand very little. If they are lucky they get an hour a day of pull out instruction and someone coming in off and on to help them. It's not enough and I can't imagine how lost many of them feel.

I feel this acutely. The over emphasis on mainstreaming everyone immediately is almost always to the detriment of kids who need extra help. I see classes with more than 10 students with IEP's and more than 5 students who are Wnhlish learners, with one part time aide who 90% of the time has to focus on student who has intensive behavioral needs and needs constant 1-1 attention. All of the other kids just get whatever the main classroom teacher can give, plus a short pull out group for EL's during 20-30 mins of language arts.

Would most IEP students and EL's be getting more attention and learning more in self-contained classes? Absolutely. No question.

I don't understand when the "least restrictive environment" slipped to ALWAYS being the mainstream classroom.

It’s swinging to even more inclusion. FCPS is piloting programs to put more students in inclusive settings and reduce self contained options.

Can you give examples?

Some of the middle and high schools are piloting it next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not really fair to the ESOL and SPED students that they are tossed in a class most of the day where they often understand very little. If they are lucky they get an hour a day of pull out instruction and someone coming in off and on to help them. It's not enough and I can't imagine how lost many of them feel.

I feel this acutely. The over emphasis on mainstreaming everyone immediately is almost always to the detriment of kids who need extra help. I see classes with more than 10 students with IEP's and more than 5 students who are Wnhlish learners, with one part time aide who 90% of the time has to focus on student who has intensive behavioral needs and needs constant 1-1 attention. All of the other kids just get whatever the main classroom teacher can give, plus a short pull out group for EL's during 20-30 mins of language arts.

Would most IEP students and EL's be getting more attention and learning more in self-contained classes? Absolutely. No question.

I don't understand when the "least restrictive environment" slipped to ALWAYS being the mainstream classroom.

It’s swinging to even more inclusion. FCPS is piloting programs to put more students in inclusive settings and reduce self contained options.

Can you give examples?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley 2% FARM
Herndon 50% FARM

Adjacent pyramids. Let me know if you see anything off about this.

It was not this way when the boundaries were drawn. Therefore, it was not "segregation."