Do Rock Creek Forest parents know about potential changes to SP Immersion, middle school, etc. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder about cluster capacity at the elementary level...

You have to remember that many of these magnet programs were created to accomplish voluntary integration. What is the demographic composition of the immersion program? Consider that in the context of the overall racialFARMS composition of the school and what the composition would be if the immersion program were to be moved.

We don't know what the FARMS of Spanish immersion is vs. FARMS of English Academy. That's a good question to pose to the principal.

It's not just FARMS, unfortunately, the issue is also race. One needs to know the racial and in/out of RCF boundary makeup of the immersion program to assess how immersion contributes to the integration of the school. Right now, even with the immersion program, RCF has the highest minority and FARMS population in the cluster.

Based on a PP's estimate that 300 students are in the immersion program and figures from the recent CIP, if the immersion program is 50% white and immersion is moved to another school, then the percentage of white students at RCF drops from 44% to 36%. If the immersion program is 80% white and immersion is moved to another school, then the percentage of white students at RCF drops from 44% to 0%. (Of course, these rough estimates would be improved by knowing what percentage of the immersion students are in-boundary for RCF.)

The bottom line is that if you remove immersion from RCF you are probably making a significant impact on the racial balance at RCF.

I would love to hear from an RCF parent with solid numbers for RCF who could show otherwise, because that would mean that the community has grown more integrated over time in terms of in-boundary demographic housing patterns. That would be a good thing!

Your math doesn't make sense. If you remove SI from RCF it doesn't make the % of white students in the school zero. Since you're interested, I pulled last year's yearbook and counted number of white students with Anglo surnames. I get 73% SI, 35% EA, with 57% school wide. Schools at a glance reports 53% white school wide, but that was data from the beginning of the school year. I'm not quite sure what point you were making with your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RCF parent here. I don't have solid numbers but my guess is that the neighborhood program is about 40% white, 30% latino and 30% African American...

It is very true that if you take the immersion out of RCF, the concentration of kids who need extra support due to issues with poverty, English-learning, etc., is going to rise. The PTA participation will drop. Fundraising will drop, which is an advantage for all kids in the school. Demand for services will rise. School test scores and AYP will decline, meaning that more and more time will have to be devoted to teaching to the test.

And while I don't think anyone is considering moving the elementary immersion program from RCF, it is true that barriers like paid bussing and lack of access to continuation at Westland will hurt the program.

I think the parents who are beginning to show their hostility to the magnet program and, in some cases, actively working against the interests of the magnet parents, will regret their actions, particularly those with younger kids who will be in the school for awhile.
Even if they don't move the elementary magnet, there are going to be a lot of bad feelings floating around that school.

This is similar in tone to the 11:00 post. PP, you are jumping to conclusions. I have yet to hear from any English side parent who is actively working against the interests of the magnet parents. Furthermore, I do not understand why you, who obviously believe in advocating for the SI program because you believe it benefits your children, are unwilling to acknowledge that EA parents may also have concerns about their children's education. If "bad feelings floating around that school" were of any concern to you, you would work on acknowledging others' right to a different opinion and their right to advocate for their own children just as you have a right to advocate for yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't personally have a problem with SSIMS -- I know lots of kids who go there and whose parents say good things about it. And we did not intend to continue in immersion anyway, so it's a non-issue for us.

However, like it or not, many parents have made decisions about their kids' schooling based on their understanding of the option to continue on to Westland. Such a change should be undertaken with transparency, openness, and the willingness to consider the immersion parents' position without a lot of accusations of trying to "game the system," which is what's happening now.

And I am really unhappy with the way the PTA is handling the whole issue. There are neighborhood parents who are acting like the immersion kids are these sneaky interlopers, rather than the schoolmates of their children. My children participate in some after-school activities where the group is mixed immersion/nonimmersion, and the hostility and resentment from some neighborhood parents is becoming depressingly evident. After so many years at the school, it's really disheartening to see.

This post is unfair. The PTA Co-President from the Spanish immersion side called a special meeting and seems to be working hard on your issues. You are also making up tales about hostility from neighborhood parents at after school activities. I'm certain that is total nonsense. Really though kids in SI can't rightfully be called schoolmates of kids in EA. They don't take any classes together other than occasionally art or music. It would be nice if you would present facts when pleading your case, rather than just lobbing grenades because you think some parents aren't doing your bidding properly.

[Anonymous]

That's true, PP. The meeting last night was very productive in the sense that everyone got to share their views and it was respectful.

I'm not making up the hostility though. It isn't everyone but there are some. And some things that were said last night back this up.

[Anonymous]

22:27 -- I do acknowledge EA parents' rights to be concerned about their kids' education! I would really like to understand -- overcrowding at Westland aside, which I do get -- how EA parents think having the SI program is bad for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Any magnet that operates as a school within a school is bound to create resentment. If there are not spaces reserved for in boundary kids then Parents are unhappy their kids have been denied access. The school system has to insure that the non-magnet program's higher farms are not masked by the magnet.

Given that the history of placing magnets in higher poverty schools, i'm curious how the middle school program came to be placed at Westland. Not exactly a high-poverty school or cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:27 -- I do acknowledge EA parents' rights to be concerned about their kids' education! I would really like to understand -- overcrowding at Westland aside, which I do get -- how EA parents think having the SI program is bad for their kids.

Some of the concerns I have about SI at RCF are-
A) It guts EA. First it limits space available for cluster kids in what is an overcrowded cluster. Then neighborhood parents whose kids don't get into SI frequently opt out of the school district either by moving, by going private, or by getting a change of school assignment (COSA) to RHPS. This leads to limits on the amount of differentiation that RCF provides in language arts, science and social studies. There is a high % of English language learners at RCF, so often the classes are so disparate in reading levels that it's just impossible for teachers to provide lessons that are appropriate for all students. At times I've seen assignments that don't work for any kid because it's geared toward a middle reading level but the kids in the homeroom are all either at the very high end or very low end.
B) I believe the administration to be more focused on the SI program. I understand it's one of the few (possibly only?) full Spanish immersion elementaries in the US so it's prestigious. They get favorable press. The administration has no choice but to focus on it. That means of course that EA loses.
C) As an EA parent I found attending PTA meetings to be kind of useless because discussion often turned to SI parents' transportation concerns. Those of us in the neighborhood walk (buses to magnets cost close to $1000 per student a year FYI). So while you have every right to discuss transportation, it tends to supplant any discussion that might be interesting/useful to both sides of the school.

[Anonymous]

That's really interesting, PP, thank you for that response.

I had never perceived that the administration (I assume you mean the school admin) to be more focused on the SI program -- they seem pretty even-handed to me but that might just be my own limited experience with my own kids. I do think it's a shame that they stopped mixing the classes for specials, etc. Under the previous principal (who probably only the fifth grade parents remember!) they split classes and recombined them for things like art and music.

Is it really true that neighborhood kids leave because the SI program limits space available to them? Are kids transferring successfully to RHPS? I had not heard that. Are the EA classes so full that transfers would be allowed on that basis?

As for the reading level issue, that's interesting because I have definitely felt the same way about SI reading classes. And for the first few years, the SI classes are huge compared to the EA. I wonder how much is just a function of MCPS' poor approach to differentiation in general. I think this is probably true at most elementary schools in the county, except for the ones in the very western part who don't have many ELL students.

But do you really think if SI went away that more neighborhood kids would go to RCF? I would think it would be the opposite -- that the overall test scores of the school would go down and it would be seen as even less desirable by the more affluent Chevy Chase parents in the neighborhood.

Finally, about the PTA meetings -- I stopped going a couple of years ago when I also perceived that they were useless. But for me, it was a new theme of "can't we all just get along" and trying to repair a rift between EA and SI that I personally had never experienced. It seemed to me that we could have worked towards some concrete goals for the school that would have brought us together. I also got tired of the "toe the MCPS line" approach of the school administration when they made presentations in the PTA meetings. I felt that I could do more in my children's classrooms and by volunteering directly with the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Is it really true that neighborhood kids leave because the SI program limits space available to them? Are kids transferring successfully to RHPS? I had not heard that. Are the EA classes so full that transfers would be allowed on that basis?

What I was saying is that the cluster doesn't make much use of RCF space b/c it's reserved for a magnet program. Neighborhood kids leave the district for a variety of reasons, mostly (apparently) b/c they perceive the EA as being not as good as it could be thanks to the presence of SI. I'm not trying to say that lots of kids transfer to RHPS. I'm aware of 3 families that have done it. The COSA process is not transparent so I can't say why MCPS allowed it, but I didn't say anything about EA classes being overly full.

As for the reading level issue, that's interesting because I have definitely felt the same way about SI reading classes. And for the first few years, the SI classes are huge compared to the EA. I wonder how much is just a function of MCPS' poor approach to differentiation in general. I think this is probably true at most elementary schools in the county, except for the ones in the very western part who don't have many ELL students.

SI classes aren't huge compared to EA although they're a good bit larger at the K level-25 SI vs. 17 this year I think. Re: reading level, we apparently have a wider range than at most other schools. You'll see kids (because they are new to the country and are non-native speakers) who haven't learned the alphabet in with kids assessed at 3 years above grade level. Of course all classrooms deal with diversity of reading levels, but we have much wider than the average band.

But do you really think if SI went away that more neighborhood kids would go to RCF? I would think it would be the opposite -- that the overall test scores of the school would go down and it would be seen as even less desirable by the more affluent Chevy Chase parents in the neighborhood.

Sure, more kids would go to RCF if the space weren't reserved for a magnet program. You're talking about test scores going down, but you are again failing to acknowledge that we are essentially two different schools. The fact that MCPS doesn't disaggregate the data doesn't change that.

[Anonymous]

PP, I just think you're wrong about a lot of that. Plus, in your clarification, you are backing off of a lot of the arguments you made in that initial post.

I maintain that if they got rid of SI, the population at RCF would have even more of the kids you mention who are new to the U.S., non-English speakers, or otherwise present greater challenges. This is not going to make it a more desirable school for Chevy Chase families, to be frank.

Yes, the two populations draw from different types of families to some degree. But they aren't two different schools -- that's such an extreme statement. Same principal and admin staff, same counselor, same specials teachers, same curriculum (just in different languages ...). Same after school programs, same gym program, same recess ....

I really think this is a "be careful what you wish for" situation. Pull SI out of RCF and I think you will have a poorer, higher-need population of students, a less desirable school (in the eyes of some parents) with lower test scores, less money, a less active PTA ...

So far you have not made a case at all for SI harming the EA. The problems that the EA has are its own problems, having to do with demographics, the facility, MCPS, etc. They aren't going to go away, and parents are not going to flock to RCF just because more spaces open up.

[Anonymous]

@00:36

The school you've described sounds pretty typical for an East County school, particularly the part where the reading level varies so widely in the early grades.

Sounds to me like RCF is a mostly Silver Spring school with a Chevy Chase zip code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I just think you're wrong about a lot of that. Plus, in your clarification, you are backing off of a lot of the arguments you made in that initial post.

I maintain that if they got rid of SI, the population at RCF would have even more of the kids you mention who are new to the U.S., non-English speakers, or otherwise present greater challenges. This is not going to make it a more desirable school for Chevy Chase families, to be frank.

Yes, the two populations draw from different types of families to some degree. But they aren't two different schools -- that's such an extreme statement. Same principal and admin staff, same counselor, same specials teachers, same curriculum (just in different languages ...). Same after school programs, same gym program, same recess ....

I really think this is a "be careful what you wish for" situation. Pull SI out of RCF and I think you will have a poorer, higher-need population of students, a less desirable school (in the eyes of some parents) with lower test scores, less money, a less active PTA ...

So far you have not made a case at all for SI harming the EA. The problems that the EA has are its own problems, having to do with demographics, the facility, MCPS, etc. They aren't going to go away, and parents are not going to flock to RCF just because more spaces open up.

I didn't back off any arguments, but I realize that SI parents are convinced that they make RCFES a better school for EA and that they're not going to be shaken from that conviction. If you left and BCC cluster elementary students were redistricted and it were an English only school I do feel that would be preferable for kids in the EA. You say you "think you will have a poorer, higher-need population of students..."; however, you've failed to back that thought up with any facts. By the way, I do think you are the OP. I'm not sure exactly why you started the thread in the first place but I'm certain you thought it would somehow benefit your kids who are SI students.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I'm not the OP, I promise. And any change such as the one you describe would have no effect on my kids, who will be long gone from RCF.

I just think that it's unlikely that MCPS would redistrict in such a way that more cluster kids from the west part of the district would be moved over to RCF. if they did this, they would balance it out with lower SES kids, I bet. Obviously I don't know what they would do, so I can't back it up with facts, but MCPS is not going to make changes that would create a less diverse RCF -- I just can't imagine that happening.

But I can imagine that even if they did bring some kids from other schools in the cluster, it doesn't solve your problem, which is essentially that there are poorer, higher needs kids in RCF who take away attention from your kids. There's also no way MCPS is going to group kids by needs/reading level in classes, so you will have the exact same issue, just on a larger scale.

I think the real problem would be solved for you if you move further west to a school where you don't have to deal with the issues that these kids bring. You paid just enough money to be in a cluster that feeds into BCC -- a good move -- but not enough to be rid of the pesky social issues that challenge much of MCPS. You applied to SI and didn't get in. You applied to HGC and didn't get in. Now you feel ripped off and overlooked by MCPS.

I will tell you what I think would help you and others in your situation. The administration of RCF should look for ways to encourage academic excellence in students and give them the opportunity to participate in some of the many ways MCPS offers to do that. RCF has no geography club, no spelling bee team, no math olympics. The administration doesn't encourage participation in county-wide contests in art, etc., and when kids take the initiative to do so, they don't recognize it. They are so focused on "7 habits" that they don't think about other ways to encourage and shape kids academically.

This attitude has zero to do with SI vs. EA. It's just a mindset. If EA parents really wanted to make RCF a better place and do it in time for their own kids to benefit, they would start some of these clubs and activities and invite kids from both programs to join.

Frankly, MCPS isn't all that enriching in its regular ES programs, no matter what the school or language. But administrations and parents can get some of these enriching programs going.

However, if the PTA is so focused on righting the "wrong" inflicted on them by the presence of the SI program, they are missing opportunities to make a real impact on the kids. And I'm not talking about efforts to raise money for promethean boards, etc. I'm talking about ways for kids to find real academic challenge and achievement.

[Anonymous]

14:05 here. I just want to clarify that I realize I sounded snarky when I talked about the PP applying to SI and HGC and not getting in. I don't have any idea who PP is or whether her children applied to magnets and did or didn't get in. No personal comment about PP or her kids was intended -- not could I accurately make one as I don't know who she is.

However, I think the lack of choice and paucity of appropriate programs at MCPS creates bitterness and resentment among parents. And why not, if your kids don't get into the few programs there are? There should be more special programs and students should be recruited from throughout the county. And there need to be more enriching opportunities in every school, including differentiated gifted instruction. It shouldn't be so "all or nothing."

IMO, those parents who don't want a cookie cutter approach should be supporting SI and other special programs. Look at MS programs like arts at Loiederman. Kids are flocking to that school and making it a desirable school, but lots of kids don't get in who would benefit.

[Anonymous]

Here's a really interesting article that speaks to the problems that 00:36 is experiencing at RCF in the EA program.

http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/