Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

In the case of kids already fluent in the language - this helps and hurts. If the fluent kids can talk to the non-fluent kids in the target language then that helps acquisition a lot. But why are they in immersion if English is the prime focus? They should just stick English. I think immersion can be fixed but you got to use tricks used by bi or tri-lingual countries. "Book Learning" your way to a language isn't the easiest way.

Because the goal for immersion isn’t fluency. It is brain development. Fluency when it happens is a happy accident in ES.

Source?

Our zoned elementary offered both immersion and level IV AAP. It was the right choice for our kids. I don’t think the regular IV at the home school anyway would have been rigorous enough for them. The added neural pathway development of learning a second language is invaluable. Yes their receptive language is better than their expressive, but it is all coming along. We do not speak it at home, but have done some travel(a week at a time, not the summer.) We would choose it again. My older child is excited for the opportunity to take latin in HS after finishing the first 3years of a language early.

Both of my kids did Spanish immersion. One is now a college sophomore who may minor in Spanish and is studying Latin American history. The second is a high school freshman. The older completed the IB diploma. The younger is two years ahead in math. I don’t think immersion hurt them one bit - in fact, I think it helped them.

I never expected fluency but I will tell you this. My oldest got off the waitlist for immersion in 2nd grade. By the third semester, we were in Target and walked by a mother/son duo and the mom was speaking in Spanish. My kid looked at me and said “mom, I know what she was saying! She was asking him if he wanted the blue coat or the red coat!” I was kind of shocked because it had been maybe 6 months into the program and they hadn’t had Spanish before this.

Long story short, I am a big believer in immersion. My oldest had probably 30 or so kids in the cohort when they graduated and my youngest test probably had 30-35.

My only wish is that our high school had a stronger Spanish program. But my oldest did pass the IB Spanish HL with a 6 or 7 - enough that they were able to skip two levels of Spanish in college, which covered their language requirement. We took them both to Spain a couple years ago and the oldest was a big help in translating and I think it boosted their confidence.

I’ll never stop advocating for immersion.

Personally, I think students from Spanish speaking households, should first learn how to read and write in Spanish, since it is much easier than doing so in English. Once they learn the mechanics, they can l transfer those skills to English. Give these kids some time to build more English vocabulary on the playground, and their environment. Then go into reading and writing instruction. Expecting kids to read and write in English, when their vocabularies are so limited is a sure way to keep them uninterested in education.

My family is bilingual (Spanish/English). My kids learned Spanish first. When it came time to sign my kids up for Kindergarten, we did not choose the fcps immersion programs because they did not focus on Language Arts in the target language. We were told one of the goals was for the kids to learn English or Spanish from each other. My kids already spoke both, and could read some easy words in Spanish before kindergarten. It just didn’t make sense for is. Now, if they focused on Language Arts in Spanish, we would have entered the lottery.

All four of my kids did the partial langauge immersion program at our neighborhood school. We chose to stay in the program instead of move to an AAP center when our oldest was in third grade. We were lucky enough that our school introduced a local AAP program when our second oldest was in third grade, so our younger three kids have gotten the best of both worlds. My two oldest kids (now young adults) are fluent, my third kid is conversational (and has taken the target language classes throughout high school). Our youngest is still in the E.S. immersion program. If you want your kid to learn more than just the vocab or receptive language skills, you really have to support the target language outside of the classroom (our kids' teachers offered suggestions when we asked since we don't speak the language at home), and your kid would benefit from continuing to take the language in middle and high school. That said, vocab and receptive language skills are also great outcomes! It just takes work outside of a classroom to achieve more than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

Yeah JIP at GFES should be removed. Unbelievable.

So GFES is already under capacity in general. The kid population decline in GF combined with the horrendous commute even from Herndon. There were 61 that graduated and out of them 6 were JIP. 10% of the class. 1st grade started with a full 32 and a slow decline from that part. The parent and student needs to commit to make it to the end. 10-20% seems reasonable for a JIP program.

If classes are that small the school should combine 2 grades of students into one JIP class.

The JIP Teachers already combine 2 (sometimes 3) grades.

Just to clarify, the small program is at Great Falls ES. The JI program at Fox Mill is far more robust. There are 2 full classes with 30 kids in some of the grades. My kids class started first grade with 32 kids and ended 6th grade with 25 kids. The other class was similar. There is a Japanese Cultural Committee that puts on programs throughout the year for the entire school. The biggest gripe is that the program splits the kids into two groups, JI and non-JI, which bothers some parents.

Anonymous wrote:I work at a Title 1 school. When students come in from Central America with no English, what classroom do you think they’re put into? The Spanish immersion classroom or the English speaking classroom? You guessed it, Spanish immersion.

At the school, I work at it is less an immersion program and more of a bridge for ELL students.

Which school is this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

Yeah JIP at GFES should be removed. Unbelievable.

So GFES is already under capacity in general. The kid population decline in GF combined with the horrendous commute even from Herndon. There were 61 that graduated and out of them 6 were JIP. 10% of the class. 1st grade started with a full 32 and a slow decline from that part. The parent and student needs to commit to make it to the end. 10-20% seems reasonable for a JIP program.

If classes are that small the school should combine 2 grades of students into one JIP class.

The JIP Teachers already combine 2 (sometimes 3) grades.

People vastly underestimate how hard it can be for at least 40% of students to read in English without structured systematic phonics instruction. Way too many immersion schools don’t spend enough time in in ENGLISH phonics

I don’t understand why the programs don’t start in third grade and only kids who are at grade level in English can enter. So many kids who have foccicukty reading in English transfer out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

In the case of kids already fluent in the language - this helps and hurts. If the fluent kids can talk to the non-fluent kids in the target language then that helps acquisition a lot. But why are they in immersion if English is the prime focus? They should just stick English. I think immersion can be fixed but you got to use tricks used by bi or tri-lingual countries. "Book Learning" your way to a language isn't the easiest way.

Because the goal for immersion isn’t fluency. It is brain development. Fluency when it happens is a happy accident in ES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that cutting immersion would not save any money.

It would at some schools. Today at the GFES graduation only 6 students finished the JIP program. This whole year they had a class for half the day with only 6 students in it. The other half of the day the students are with the non JIP students. 1/2 the day of teaching budget is being spent for 6 kids.

Yeah JIP at GFES should be removed. Unbelievable.

So GFES is already under capacity in general. The kid population decline in GF combined with the horrendous commute even from Herndon. There were 61 that graduated and out of them 6 were JIP. 10% of the class. 1st grade started with a full 32 and a slow decline from that part. The parent and student needs to commit to make it to the end. 10-20% seems reasonable for a JIP program.

If classes are that small the school should combine 2 grades of students into one JIP class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

In the case of kids already fluent in the language - this helps and hurts. If the fluent kids can talk to the non-fluent kids in the target language then that helps acquisition a lot. But why are they in immersion if English is the prime focus? They should just stick English. I think immersion can be fixed but you got to use tricks used by bi or tri-lingual countries. "Book Learning" your way to a language isn't the easiest way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

Sorry you don’t understand that money is not unlimited and we should select programs that provide high value and serve many kids. Immersion doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. Unfortunately it has powerful advocates that won’t let common sense prevail.

Your reply is to the wrong post. I said nothing about whether money should be spent on immersion. Some here do not understand the goals of immersion (and create their own goals which don’t align with what the schools’ goals are).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked for a long time in an immersion school and it was clear the kids were not developing fluency but they did get vocabulary and learned some. I studied the target language for a long time and would sometimes speak to immersion kids in the language and it was clear they couldn’t respond. It also means your kid is with the same group of kids every year and that is often not a good thing. I’d certainly pick AAP over immersion, although I am sure everyone has different experiences.

It’s quite shocking how little of the language these kids learn. It’s a total waste of money for FCPS. There are many superior programs with lower disruption. I hope immersion is killed soon.

Sorry you can’t hear in the back. The goal of immersions is NOT language fluency. I’ve explained this upthread. Go read up on the benefits of immersion.

If language acquisition is your goal for your child, then then they need to be in a school where the target language is spoken exclusively.

No arguments on the benefits of immersion.

I disagree that the target language needs to be spoken exclusively. During college I asked about how some of my colleagues learned English - mostly from Hollywood blockbusters. I think 2 hrs a day for 6-7years is enough to be fluent in any language. If you force the kids to interact in the target language - that's not what's done. What's done is back to the failed "book learning" approach to language acquisition.

I’m the PP. monitoring kids speech on the playground could make a difference but in the case of Spanish immersion 99% of the native Spanish speakers are already fluent English speakers. At least when my now HS kids were in ES, the language on the playground was English. Native Spanish speaking parents wanted their kids to focus on English (I can understand this coming from an immigrant household).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live between a title 1 ES school and another ES school where close to 90% of the kids are not caucasian and english is a second language. They both have immersion...and the PP above is correct, immersion at these schools is just a bridge to learn english for these kids.

But it is often sold as a way for kids to learn a foreign language. But just a one look at the classrooms and you will quickly see its 25 hispanic kids and 2 non hispanic kids.

However, I will say the real goal of these programs is to help the hispanic kids learn English and that seems to work really well!

That is totally not what is supposed to be about it's not supposed to insulate the esol students from learning English wtf

If this is your take away you have trouble comprehending English.