Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Current MCPS language immersion programs are incredibly classist
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Annnnnd...here's a reason for Jeff to invent a mechanism better to identify, if not block, resurrection of old/stale threads. You went all the way back to page 1 to quibble with a point made over 10 years ago...and back then it was true! Those assigned to the Spanish Immersion program at RCF could articulate to Westland to continue immersion, and, in 2015, anyone going to a feeder MS was permitted to continue to the HS of articulation, B-CC in this case. It was used by in-the-know families (immersion opportunities and the sequellae were less well known, then -- one can see this in looking back in the thread) not only to gain a second (or third, depending on the home/community experience) language, but also to gain access to a superior HS option. MCPS cut that tie to HS a number of years ago, and, a bit after (IIRC, if not at the same time), opened other MS immersion sites (e.g, White Oak), sending RCF graduates, then, to different middles according to their home address -- not all can go to Westland, now. |
Anonymous
Taylor will probably get rid of at least some of the language immersion programs. I think that the CES programs will be cut as well. |
Anonymous
I think the dual immersion programs will unfortunately be abandoned but I doubt Taylor is going to cut these longstanding and successful OWI programs. French is over 50 years old. I wouldn't be surprised to see some rearranging of where they are. |
Anonymous
What the dual immersion programs have in their favor is less need for transportation since all the program participants are at their home school. |
Anonymous
| I’m hopeful they will rearrange, as a current immersion parent. They could place one class of each language in each region, by adding a few more classes (which I assume is a lot to ask, but maybe doable). You would lose the advantage of having more than one class per school, but better than getting rid of the program all together. |
Anonymous
And, y'know, the whole learning English thing...and the opportunity for Spanish-speaking EMLs to learn Math, Science and Social Studies without being so lost as they get up to speed in their English proficiency. |
Anonymous
Taylor kills the longstanding successful SMCS program. It’s 40 years old and produced astronaut, administrator of federal government agency, and numerous college professors. And Taylor just kills it. Why do you believe he will show some mercy to OWI? |
Anonymous
Where is the evaluation of the OWI programs and their impact on these populations? And if these are expensive programs meant only to serve a small set of lucky wealthy kids, then why are we spending taxpayer dollars for them? |
Anonymous
The thread is ancient, as are most of the points brought up. Much (though not all) of the social criticism from that time now quoted in present-day responses is irrelevant. Immersion still presents fantastic opportunity, and holds great promise if designed/resourced/delivered equitably. |
Anonymous
So no evaluation of the impact of OWI on: - kids that receive FARMS - kids with IEPs - EMLs But we should eliminate a much newer program that is more accessible to all kids and that is in the early stages of implementation? |
Anonymous
| Posts from 2015 are not relevant. Our immersion programs certainly have their problems, and suffer from the same bureaucracy and unhelpfulness that any other mcps school or program has. But they are valuable. Learning in another language and becoming fluent is a valuable thing. And it's great for so many kids to learn in the heritage language of their families. |
Anonymous
It doesn't matter if it is valuable to a small few. When it is ONLY valuable to people in the know and have the time and resources to do all of the work involved before and during - along with the staff needed to process, read, pick everyone and staff the schools and keep up the resources for the programs, all paid for with EVERYONE's taxes while there are still schools with asbestos, leaking rusted, decrepit schools, lack of resources for those in need, kids hungry, school safety issues etc... it becomes a huge waste of money spent. |
Anonymous
Strongly disagree. Most families with kids in these programs will say they wish the number of seats could be expanded to meet demand. I actually think MCPS could do this if they focused on increasing Spanish language programs (more challenging in French and Chinese). We should be encouraging language study. Sligo Creek houses French and is in pretty poor shape. I think the building quality issues are very widespread in MCPS. But I understand that languages other than English are not a priority for you. |
Anonymous
I absolutely think he might rearrange OWI, the way he has SMCS. I understand many people on here consider SMCS killed but that is not true on paper. The argument seems to be that the quality will change because the students admitted will change. I've never seen any immersion advocates worry that OWI would drop in quality if everyone could get a seat. |
Anonymous
Not sure where from that post you draw the inference that the newer TWI programs should be eliminated. It's an anon forum, and posts providing new info or a new viewpoint can come from new posters. In this case, the "y'know" and "fantastic opportunity" posts were not from the same poster as the dual-unfortunately-abandoned poster. Immersion, whichever flavor, can deliver great benefit, but, like just about everything in MCPS, requires good design, adequate resourcing and fidelity in delivery to do so equitably. The resurrection of the ancient thread reads like someone who is drumming ip support for lower taxes and/or alternate use of operational funds (I'd challenge them, though, to identify the differential cost of Immersion delivery vs. a no-Immersion scenario -- there likely is lower hanging fruit, and with more questionable benefit), looking to encourage the elimination of one or both flavors based on long-past levels of inequity. Not that there is no inequity remaining, but that the resurrecting poster is willing to ignore the considerable differences between the 2015 paradigm and that of the present day in order to press that objective. |