Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

NP here. I don't think the poster was saying that it's impossible. But everyone does not want their kid in a language immersion school. I personally did not want my child in an immersion school because said child gets bored easily, and enjoys constant change. I didn't want to risk her failing in school because she didn't enjoy the language being taught. I have no problems with my child learning a language as an add on in school (as she is). I just wouldn't want it to be the focus. I think it's great that there are different styles and opportunities of learning in the district. And I don't see one being more effective then the other. You just have to choose what's best for your child.

actually I enrolled my child in immersion to counteract boredom. If the reading and math were too easy try it in another language.

wow. clearly you have an agenda! i assure you, at our language immersion charter there is diversity, inclusiveness, and an international perspective!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

Agree with this.

foreign language learning is much more a cognitive problem solving activity than a linguistic activity, overall. Studies have shown repeatedly that foreign language learning increases critical thinking skills, creativity, and flexibility of mind in young children. Students who are learning a foreign language out-score their non-foreign language learning peers in the verbal and, surprisingly to some, the math sections of standardized tests. This relationship between foreign language study and increased mathematical skill development, particularly in the area of problem solving, points once again to the fact that second language learning is more of a cognitive than linguistic activity.
A 2007 study in Harwich, Massachusetts, showed that students who studied a foreign language in an articulated sequence outperformed their non-foreign language learning peers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test after two-three years and significantly outperformed them after seven-eight years on all MCAS subtests.

Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day. Again, this research upholds the notion that learning a second language is an exercise in cognitive problem solving and that the effects of second language instruction are directly transferable to the area of mathematical skill development.

http://tip.duke.edu/node/866

But which really came first, PP, the second language or the intelligence? Some might argue that what motivates the creation of language immersion charters, at least in part, is the desire to drive out kids who are not smart enough, don't have support at home, come from a different culture, etc.

I think it's you who are continually arguing that language immersion schools are designed to keep low-SES families out. That is complete BS. Look at Mary McLeod Bethune or DC Bilingual and get back to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

Agree with this.

foreign language learning is much more a cognitive problem solving activity than a linguistic activity, overall. Studies have shown repeatedly that foreign language learning increases critical thinking skills, creativity, and flexibility of mind in young children. Students who are learning a foreign language out-score their non-foreign language learning peers in the verbal and, surprisingly to some, the math sections of standardized tests. This relationship between foreign language study and increased mathematical skill development, particularly in the area of problem solving, points once again to the fact that second language learning is more of a cognitive than linguistic activity.
A 2007 study in Harwich, Massachusetts, showed that students who studied a foreign language in an articulated sequence outperformed their non-foreign language learning peers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test after two-three years and significantly outperformed them after seven-eight years on all MCAS subtests.

Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day. Again, this research upholds the notion that learning a second language is an exercise in cognitive problem solving and that the effects of second language instruction are directly transferable to the area of mathematical skill development.

http://tip.duke.edu/node/866

But which really came first, PP, the second language or the intelligence? Some might argue that what motivates the creation of language immersion charters, at least in part, is the desire to drive out kids who are not smart enough, don't have support at home, come from a different culture, etc.

Anonymous wrote:1:13 What are you talking about? Literature immersion?

Hadn't thought it through fully, but something along the lines of replacing or supplementing textbooks with literature of the period, e.g., study WWI in history class by reading All Quiet on the Western Front, maybe read The Double Helix in science class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

NP here. I don't think the poster was saying that it's impossible. But everyone does not want their kid in a language immersion school. I personally did not want my child in an immersion school because said child gets bored easily, and enjoys constant change. I didn't want to risk her failing in school because she didn't enjoy the language being taught. I have no problems with my child learning a language as an add on in school (as she is). I just wouldn't want it to be the focus. I think it's great that there are different styles and opportunities of learning in the district. And I don't see one being more effective then the other. You just have to choose what's best for your child.

It's entirely different to have no interest in bilingual education. That is every parent's choice to make for their family. But the other PP said they'd rather the school "focus on instruction instead of looking for native teachers" - that very much sets up an either/or situation that is simply not necessary.

You don't want language immersion for your kid, cool. But no one should speak about immersion as if it's a choice between a focus on language and a focus on quality core subject instruction. Most bilingual schools in DC are very very focused on quality core subject instruction. And some of us are excited about the bonus to performance in core subjects that bilingual educ seems to lead to. But it's totally understandable that many many families may not want bilingual educ.

I know that Washington Global had been proposed for Wards 4, 5, 7 or 8, but here are my speculations:

1. that they want to site near some population of native Spanish speakers due to their proposed program. To me that means they would greatly prefer Ward 4 or 5 over Wards 7 or 8.
2. they would face significant middle school competition in Ward 4 from Washington Latin, DCI and other schools targeting the same population and drawing large numbers at middle school.
3. Ward 5 likely has space available and fewer charter middle school options.

My guess therefore is that Ward 5 is where they end up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would Washington Global attract families on the Chinese side? Yu Ying already has a middle school feeder, doesn't seem like a good idea. However, it seems like a solid option for DCPS spanish dual language schools who need a middle school option. How does this new Charter hurt the proposed "MacFarland"?

It's not an immersion school. In fact, it looks exactly like Creative Minds, but a middle school.

Not a bad idea. The CM and IT kids will need someplace to go after ES.

IT has a middle school.

CM is also going through 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would Washington Global attract families on the Chinese side? Yu Ying already has a middle school feeder, doesn't seem like a good idea. However, it seems like a solid option for DCPS spanish dual language schools who need a middle school option. How does this new Charter hurt the proposed "MacFarland"?

It's not an immersion school. In fact, it looks exactly like Creative Minds, but a middle school.

Not a bad idea. The CM and IT kids will need someplace to go after ES.

IT has a middle school.

hmmm.....i don't think you're correct. there is a ton of diversity in the lang. immersion schools and low ses parents see these programs as a leg up for their kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I wish charters would branch out from the language emphasis. Languages are good but hardly the only thing that matters! Would prefer that the school focuses on instruction instead of being distracted by trying to hire native speakers.

You say that as if doing both is impossible. It's not. Time will mainly tell, but the language immersion schools I'm most familiar with strive to do both really well. We'll all see how students do as these schools are open for 10 and 15 years.

NP here. I don't think the poster was saying that it's impossible. But everyone does not want their kid in a language immersion school. I personally did not want my child in an immersion school because said child gets bored easily, and enjoys constant change. I didn't want to risk her failing in school because she didn't enjoy the language being taught. I have no problems with my child learning a language as an add on in school (as she is). I just wouldn't want it to be the focus. I think it's great that there are different styles and opportunities of learning in the district. And I don't see one being more effective then the other. You just have to choose what's best for your child.

Charters are specialty schools. No was "has" to attend them. Everyone gets a general neighborhood school to which they may send their kids, or they can apply OOB to other schools or move IB for another school.

If you want a charter that is not language immersion, then you can put in the 4+ years with 10-15 other people get an application together and have it approved by the charter board.

I'm aware that charter schools are specialty schools. My daughter attends one, that is shockingly NOT immersion. Language is not the only specialty around here....

My point is that if people want another specialty charter, then they should put in the work to start one. Clearly there are a lot of people who flock to the language immersion school (of which the newly-approved middle school is NOT one, by the way). If people want a "literature immersion" school or whatever (still don't understand what that is), then they can put the work to get founders together to make that happen. Of course, it's a ton of work, and the PCSB doesn't just approve them willy-nilly, so it actually has to be a good proposal. But I'm sick of having people on here say "we need a charter ______" as if someone else should do all the work.