Immersion Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got into RCF and have no other kids in school, so it wasn't through a sibling spot.

No one is saying that all the spots are given to siblings. That would highly unlikely, it's the issue of lottery seats being given to siblings. I am merely making a case for what many see as an unfair sibling policy.

Actually someone did say that a page or two earlier in the thread, or at least said they had heard it. I personally think the sibling thing is appropriate. Maybe not fair, but appropriate. There are pros to keeping families in the same school and I think it would be crappier for a younger sub not to go to the same program as his/her older sib than it would be for someone who applied not to get a spot. So anyway, people are posting non-sib spots to assure those earlier posters that siblings are not taking every spot. Really what we need is more classes added to the programs - let's unite and push for that rather than pushing for eliminating the sibling policy - in the classes I know in immersion, there are a only a handful of siblings in each class. It's really not as big a problem as you might you think it is.

No... Sibling should get automatic COSA for attending the SCHOOL were older sibling is taking immersion. But there shouldn't be a dynasty of a 5 kid family all getting slot just because there big brother got a slot years earlier.

If you COSA into the immersion school, you have to go into the school's non-immersion program, which is usually just as bad as the home school. Defeating the reason most do immersion to begin with.

[Anonymous]

What about spot for a third grader wh's fluent already in Spanish? How does that work? We'd like to transfer next year out of our current DC immersion program when we move.

[Anonymous]

I don;t think you can apply until you live in MoCo so timing might be difficult. If there is an empty 3rd grade spot, with no weight list they might let you fill it after you moved. I know at College Gardens the numbers drop as the years go by..but there are probably fewer kids that are able to test in with Chinese. The numbers drop the most for 4th when kids move to HGCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got into RCF and have no other kids in school, so it wasn't through a sibling spot.

No one is saying that all the spots are given to siblings. That would highly unlikely, it's the issue of lottery seats being given to siblings. I am merely making a case for what many see as an unfair sibling policy.

Actually someone did say that a page or two earlier in the thread, or at least said they had heard it. I personally think the sibling thing is appropriate. Maybe not fair, but appropriate. There are pros to keeping families in the same school and I think it would be crappier for a younger sub not to go to the same program as his/her older sib than it would be for someone who applied not to get a spot. So anyway, people are posting non-sib spots to assure those earlier posters that siblings are not taking every spot. Really what we need is more classes added to the programs - let's unite and push for that rather than pushing for eliminating the sibling policy - in the classes I know in immersion, there are a only a handful of siblings in each class. It's really not as big a problem as you might you think it is.

No... Sibling should get automatic COSA for attending the SCHOOL were older sibling is taking immersion. But there shouldn't be a dynasty of a 5 kid family all getting slot just because there big brother got a slot years earlier.

There isn't. Sibling preference only applies is the sibling will have his/her older sib actually AT the school that year. So don't worry about this scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got into RCF and have no other kids in school, so it wasn't through a sibling spot.

No one is saying that all the spots are given to siblings. That would highly unlikely, it's the issue of lottery seats being given to siblings. I am merely making a case for what many see as an unfair sibling policy.

Actually someone did say that a page or two earlier in the thread, or at least said they had heard it. I personally think the sibling thing is appropriate. Maybe not fair, but appropriate. There are pros to keeping families in the same school and I think it would be crappier for a younger sub not to go to the same program as his/her older sib than it would be for someone who applied not to get a spot. So anyway, people are posting non-sib spots to assure those earlier posters that siblings are not taking every spot. Really what we need is more classes added to the programs - let's unite and push for that rather than pushing for eliminating the sibling policy - in the classes I know in immersion, there are a only a handful of siblings in each class. It's really not as big a problem as you might you think it is.

No... Sibling should get automatic COSA for attending the SCHOOL were older sibling is taking immersion. But there shouldn't be a dynasty of a 5 kid family all getting slot just because there big brother got a slot years earlier.

If you COSA into the immersion school, you have to go into the school's non-immersion program, which is usually just as bad as the home school. Defeating the reason most do immersion to begin with.

PP here, exactly! Siblings should go into the normal program and apply for lottery just like everyone else!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got into RCF and have no other kids in school, so it wasn't through a sibling spot.

No one is saying that all the spots are given to siblings. That would highly unlikely, it's the issue of lottery seats being given to siblings. I am merely making a case for what many see as an unfair sibling policy.

Actually someone did say that a page or two earlier in the thread, or at least said they had heard it. I personally think the sibling thing is appropriate. Maybe not fair, but appropriate. There are pros to keeping families in the same school and I think it would be crappier for a younger sub not to go to the same program as his/her older sib than it would be for someone who applied not to get a spot. So anyway, people are posting non-sib spots to assure those earlier posters that siblings are not taking every spot. Really what we need is more classes added to the programs - let's unite and push for that rather than pushing for eliminating the sibling policy - in the classes I know in immersion, there are a only a handful of siblings in each class. It's really not as big a problem as you might you think it is.

No... Sibling should get automatic COSA for attending the SCHOOL were older sibling is taking immersion. But there shouldn't be a dynasty of a 5 kid family all getting slot just because there big brother got a slot years earlier.

There isn't. Sibling preference only applies is the sibling will have his/her older sib actually AT the school that year. So don't worry about this scenario.

It doesn't take much thought to realize that a family of 5 kids spaced 2 years apart can have kids continually entering the school for a decade.

[Anonymous]

Do you know a single family of six kids all spaced a few years apart that are one-by-one taking an immersion spot? It's a scenario that is entirely useless to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know a single family of six kids all spaced a few years apart that are one-by-one taking an immersion spot? It's a scenario that is entirely useless to discuss.

No, but I do know of the three kid family taking up spots. The point is, they are essentially "winning" a lottery seat every time, without having to play. It's not fair and for those who argue it's a pain to have kids in different schools, then the COSA takes care of that. Btw, I know a lot of families who have excellent homeschools that still apply for immersion, so that argument that people are applying for immersion because they are avoiding lousy homeschools isn't always the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know a single family of six kids all spaced a few years apart that are one-by-one taking an immersion spot? It's a scenario that is entirely useless to discuss.

I'm PP who typed what you are responding too. I don't know specifically because I'm not keeping track. But I do know specifically of many 3 kid families where this certainly applies. Siblings do not take up all spots but they do take up a significant portion. Again, I can't know for sure without getting data how many siblings are in via preference (I believe the data was compiled when they were doing the COSA study a year or so ago so its out there). But the concept of sibling preference itself I have a problem with whether its 1 kid or 30 kids, it doesn't matter to me. I was simply provided an example that could certainly manifest in real life and would be completely acceptable under the current system.

[Anonymous]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the sibling preference thing. I think it stinks that there aren't enough spaces for everyone that wants an immersion program. Absolutely. But I also think that it's better overall that a sibling gets a spot than that everyone has equal access to every single spot. It's better for the school and for the program when parents are committed to a single program than spread between two and I think it would be really unfair to the younger child to not have the opportunity his/her older sibling does. For the good of the whole, I agree with sibling preference, but I also agree that the whole thing just sucks because there's not enough space.

[Anonymous]

Here's the break down :

School Available K Seat Spots taken by Siblings
201 2012 2011
Burnt Mills 26 9 10 4
College Gardens 26 10 9 7
Maryvale 52 18 15 11
Potomac 26 12 9 9
Rock Creek Forest 52 27 21 22
Rolling Terrace 50 11 15 25
Sligo Creek 52 23 18 21

[Anonymous]

School Available K Seats Spots taken by Siblings
2013 2012 2011
Burnt Mills 26 9 10 4
College Gardens 26 10 9 7
Maryvale 52 18 15 11
Potomac 26 12 9 9
Rock Creek Forest 52 27 21 22
Rolling Terrace 50 11 15 25
Sligo Creek 52 23 18 21

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School Available K Seats Spots taken by Siblings
2013 2012 2011
Burnt Mills 26 9 10 4
College Gardens 26 10 9 7
Maryvale 52 18 15 11
Potomac 26 12 9 9
Rock Creek Forest 52 27 21 22
Rolling Terrace 50 11 15 25
Sligo Creek 52 23 18 21

Where did you find this info? If this is accurate, than in some years, roughly half the K classes were taken by siblings at RCF, SC and RT.

Lottery my foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know a single family of six kids all spaced a few years apart that are one-by-one taking an immersion spot? It's a scenario that is entirely useless to discuss.

I know of at least three families with 4 kids and many with 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School Available K Seats Spots taken by Siblings
2013 2012 2011
Burnt Mills 26 9 10 4
College Gardens 26 10 9 7
Maryvale 52 18 15 11
Potomac 26 12 9 9
Rock Creek Forest 52 27 21 22
Rolling Terrace 50 11 15 25
Sligo Creek 52 23 18 21

Where did you find this info? If this is accurate, than in some years, roughly half the K classes were taken by siblings at RCF, SC and RT.

Lottery my foot.

I'm 11:56. Its most certainly accurate and was data the board used when initially revising policy JEE in 2013. I refrained from commenting on the data but you seemed to have extracted the same problem I see. You have to dig through this link to get the chart.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/9CCL8K555439/$file/JEE%20Comment%20Summary.pdf