current and potential immersion parents - watch out sneaky tactic to kick you out of bcc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - If you can eliminate 25 kids/grade - that's 100 kids which is about 2/3 of the current overcrowding. Does it solve the whole problem? No. But that's a sizable percentage. Should we look at ALL COSAs? Yes. But that doesn't mean you do nothing at all while you work through the other COSAs.

And couldn't this be seen as an opportunity to increase the number of Spanish 7 classes around the entire system? Why should BCC be one of the few when there are surely home school communities that would appreciate the option.

Because, when you take 25 immersion kid and split them up around 20 high schools, that means that there are only a few kids prepared for Spanish 7 at each school -- not enough to offer a successful class. You can't have an effective Spanish class that is teaching to three different levels of Spanish in the same classroom. This would mean that each group is getting about 15 minutes of instruction and spending the rest of the time teaching themselves. Not really an effective strategy in a foreign language.

Not true. My French immersion high schooler is thriving at Blair in his French classes. He spends zero time teaching himself.

Not PP but most Rt kids go to Blair so that's not what pp meant. It's is the kid goes some place else like Clarksburg or Rockville

Er I meant most SSIMS go to Blair ...

That is not factually correct. Immersion kids go to their home school or participate in the DCC choice process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - If you can eliminate 25 kids/grade - that's 100 kids which is about 2/3 of the current overcrowding. Does it solve the whole problem? No. But that's a sizable percentage. Should we look at ALL COSAs? Yes. But that doesn't mean you do nothing at all while you work through the other COSAs.

And couldn't this be seen as an opportunity to increase the number of Spanish 7 classes around the entire system? Why should BCC be one of the few when there are surely home school communities that would appreciate the option.

Because, when you take 25 immersion kid and split them up around 20 high schools, that means that there are only a few kids prepared for Spanish 7 at each school -- not enough to offer a successful class. You can't have an effective Spanish class that is teaching to three different levels of Spanish in the same classroom. This would mean that each group is getting about 15 minutes of instruction and spending the rest of the time teaching themselves. Not really an effective strategy in a foreign language.

Not true. My French immersion high schooler is thriving at Blair in his French classes. He spends zero time teaching himself.

Not PP but most Rt kids go to Blair so that's not what pp meant. It's is the kid goes some place else like Clarksburg or Rockville

Er I meant most SSIMS go to Blair ...

That is not factually correct. Immersion kids go to their home school or participate in the DCC choice process.

It is factually correct because most kids in SSIMS live in the area. So most just go to Blair because its already the homeschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - If you can eliminate 25 kids/grade - that's 100 kids which is about 2/3 of the current overcrowding. Does it solve the whole problem? No. But that's a sizable percentage. Should we look at ALL COSAs? Yes. But that doesn't mean you do nothing at all while you work through the other COSAs.

And couldn't this be seen as an opportunity to increase the number of Spanish 7 classes around the entire system? Why should BCC be one of the few when there are surely home school communities that would appreciate the option.

Because, when you take 25 immersion kid and split them up around 20 high schools, that means that there are only a few kids prepared for Spanish 7 at each school -- not enough to offer a successful class. You can't have an effective Spanish class that is teaching to three different levels of Spanish in the same classroom. This would mean that each group is getting about 15 minutes of instruction and spending the rest of the time teaching themselves. Not really an effective strategy in a foreign language.

Not true. My French immersion high schooler is thriving at Blair in his French classes. He spends zero time teaching himself.

Not PP but most Rt kids go to Blair so that's not what pp meant. It's is the kid goes some place else like Clarksburg or Rockville

Er I meant most SSIMS go to Blair ...

That is not factually correct. Immersion kids go to their home school or participate in the DCC choice process.

It is factually correct because most kids in SSIMS live in the area. So most just go to Blair because its already the homeschool.

The home high school for SSIMS is not Blair. It is Northwood.

[Anonymous]

Actually the home school for some ssims kids is blair and for others it is northwood. It depends on which feeder elementary they attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spanish 7 is an IB course. Span AP Language is offered as level 6 in most if not all schools; AP Lit is level 7. So pretty universal availability of Spanish through level 7. Schools offering IB Spanish 7A/B in 2012-2013:
Albert Einstein HS
Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS
Richard Montgomery HS
Rockville HS
Seneca Valley HS
Springbrook HS
Watkins Mill HS

I don't quite get this. If it's only offered in these seven high schools, it's not "pretty universally available."

Students at high schools where it is not offered can go to another high school for the class.

[Anonymous]

Wether or not you agree with the change, the way this has been handled has been awful. MCPS promised immersion parents that any changes would be tranparent, that their input would be sought, and that there would be plenty of notice. NONE of this has happened. Instead, it was snuck in in June and will be voted on in September. Not a single immersion parent was invited to give input to the policy committee. The PTAs that supposedly represent all parents, particularly the Westland PTA, was 100% silent on the issue and immersion parents had to find out about it from the RCF PTA. And when parents went to testify before the Board -- something that is their right -- they were chastized by one board member for doing so.

All in all, an awful display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wether or not you agree with the change, the way this has been handled has been awful. MCPS promised immersion parents that any changes would be tranparent, that their input would be sought, and that there would be plenty of notice. NONE of this has happened. Instead, it was snuck in in June and will be voted on in September. Not a single immersion parent was invited to give input to the policy committee. The PTAs that supposedly represent all parents, particularly the Westland PTA, was 100% silent on the issue and immersion parents had to find out about it from the RCF PTA. And when parents went to testify before the Board -- something that is their right -- they were chastized by one board member for doing so.

All in all, an awful display.

It's not just an awful display in the case of how MCPS treats immersion parents. The BCC Cluster of PTAs Reps took up a position to support this without any feedback from the community as a whole. I am not an immersion parent, but I am a BCC Cluster parent, and I do not support this. There are other problems with this COSA change which affect the rights of BCC Cluster kids who attend the middle school magnets and may want to apply for programs at Blair (like CAP) but will not be able to do so if this passes. Plus there are likely elementary COSA rights that are affected in BCC Cluster. Because the BCC Cluster of PTAs reps chose to support this without first getting feedback from the wider community, they took a position on a regulation change without even understanding what the full impact would be. They have provided no data to the parent community to help make decisions about whether this is an appropriate policy. It was just announced as a fait accompli (that the BCC Cluster would support it.) Shamefully poor, undemocratic work.

[Anonymous]

According to the document on the MCPS site, the proposed changes to COSA policy were discussed in March and May Board meetings. The mark-up documents are posted with the agenda advance of each meeting. So nothing was "snuck in" in June. And this is far from a new proposal - just untimely for some who fear their options will be limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the document on the MCPS site, the proposed changes to COSA policy were discussed in March and May Board meetings. The mark-up documents are posted with the agenda advance of each meeting. So nothing was "snuck in" in June. And this is far from a new proposal - just untimely for some who fear their options will be limited.

+1
Part of the problem at these schools is the need to represent different communities who may have opposing views on this issue. In the case of Westland, immersion parents might well be outnumbered by parents who are more concerned with overcrowding since immersion makes up a small percentage of the student community. In the case of RCF, that school community used to be more immersion kids but now is more neighborhood kids. So, how to represent immersion parents if the majority of parents are more supportive of dealing with overcrowding to include limiting COSAs? I'm really not sure how that would be so easily handled. Plus, how to justify telling the neighborhood that you must advocate against their interests because you house a county wide magnet program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the document on the MCPS site, the proposed changes to COSA policy were discussed in March and May Board meetings. The mark-up documents are posted with the agenda advance of each meeting. So nothing was "snuck in" in June. And this is far from a new proposal - just untimely for some who fear their options will be limited.

+1
Part of the problem at these schools is the need to represent different communities who may have opposing views on this issue. In the case of Westland, immersion parents might well be outnumbered by parents who are more concerned with overcrowding since immersion makes up a small percentage of the student community. In the case of RCF, that school community used to be more immersion kids but now is more neighborhood kids. So, how to represent immersion parents if the majority of parents are more supportive of dealing with overcrowding to include limiting COSAs? I'm really not sure how that would be so easily handled. Plus, how to justify telling the neighborhood that you must advocate against their interests because you house a county wide magnet program?

Might.. Might not... Parents need to be aware first.... Seems like many were not aware. Also there should be some system in place to ensure that those affected down the matriculation line have input. What current BCC parents want may not reflect what future BCC parents want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spanish 7 is an IB course. Span AP Language is offered as level 6 in most if not all schools; AP Lit is level 7. So pretty universal availability of Spanish through level 7. Schools offering IB Spanish 7A/B in 2012-2013:
Albert Einstein HS
Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS
Richard Montgomery HS
Rockville HS
Seneca Valley HS
Springbrook HS
Watkins Mill HS

I don't quite get this. If it's only offered in these seven high schools, it's not "pretty universally available."

Students at high schools where it is not offered can go to another high school for the class.

Well, that's not always practical now is it?

[Anonymous]

Parents were told by MCPS County Superintendent that MCPS would reach out to them and seek their input before making changes, and changes would not be sudden.

These were both lies. If you think parents having to monitor the agendas of BoE policy committees is adequate "outreach," I hope you never have an issue to address wiht MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents were told by MCPS County Superintendent that MCPS would reach out to them and seek their input before making changes, and changes would not be sudden.

These were both lies. If you think parents having to monitor the agendas of BoE policy committees is adequate "outreach," I hope you never have an issue to address wiht MCPS.

+1. And if BCC Cluster reps think they're doing a good job of including the community and reflecting their views democratically because the proposed legislation was on BoE and people should have come to then.... well, then, you've got a screw loose.

[Anonymous]

I can't figure out why this is even an issue. This is the biggest problem the BoE has to solve, figuring out how to make sure your kid has Spanish with his friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spanish 7 is an IB course. Span AP Language is offered as level 6 in most if not all schools; AP Lit is level 7. So pretty universal availability of Spanish through level 7. Schools offering IB Spanish 7A/B in 2012-2013:
Albert Einstein HS
Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS
Richard Montgomery HS
Rockville HS
Seneca Valley HS
Springbrook HS
Watkins Mill HS

I don't quite get this. If it's only offered in these seven high schools, it's not "pretty universally available."

Students at high schools where it is not offered can go to another high school for the class.

Well, that's not always practical now is it?

This was already explained upthread in a quote that somehow was not included above. All MCPS high schools have top level Spanish, whether it is IB or AP.