Is Sligo Creek French immersion open to all MC residents? and other questions

[Anonymous]

Maybe this year just had an unusually high number of siblings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lottery is not a true lottery. Siblings are enrolled automatically. That immediately puts a single kid in disadvantage. Is is possible (although unlikely) that any given year if every kid has a sibling, there will be very few spots for a kid with no siblings. The atmosphere is that of parents feeling superior bc their kids go to FI. If you are a french family, stick to your roots, speak french at home, it will be much better.

Anonymous wrote:Well, siblings are diminishing my child possibility. And I have only one child, that will not have a sibling. The system is not fair, but claims itself fair with erroneous mathematical assumptions. The system is biased and discriminatory against single child families.

This is a bit much. You sound unhinged.

[Anonymous]

We have friends whose 2 kids are there. Sibling policy makes sense, so they can speak French to each other and at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have friends whose 2 kids are there. Sibling policy makes sense, so they can speak French to each other and at home.

And so their parents do not have to deal with logistics vis-a-vis two schools (which is the point of the policy).

[Anonymous]

All immersion schools, especially the full immersion (Sligo and Rock Creek) have very, very long waitlists. Your odds are quite low. More frustrating now with a child in first is they redo the lottery each year. So while we maybe would have gotten in this year (first), we got bumped from our number that we had for kindergarten. Also, the rules change every year. You have to STAY in MCPS to eligible for a slot. Maybe in past years you could go private, hope for a slot then switch, but not anymore. I agree with previous posters that I don't understand why parents would send their child to an immersion class if it's their native language. If it's a 3rd language, sure.

[Anonymous]

Is is not everyone's problem that individual families have it "easier". The system is biased and is NOT a lottery. Explain to me how it is not biased. A fair system should put everyone in the lottery. If the school is not close to your home, it is also not everyone's problem. Do not call fair a system that is not. Call it something else. And it is discriminartory: A sibling has 100% chances to get into the program. My child has 1 in 300. Is that fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is is not everyone's problem that individual families have it "easier". The system is biased and is NOT a lottery. Explain to me how it is not biased. A fair system should put everyone in the lottery. If the school is not close to your home, it is also not everyone's problem. Do not call fair a system that is not. Call it something else. And it is discriminartory: A sibling has 100% chances to get into the program. My child has 1 in 300. Is that fair?

But the sibling's older sibling had the same 1 in 300 chance. It's really the family entering the lottery, however "fair" it may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is is not everyone's problem that individual families have it "easier". The system is biased and is NOT a lottery. Explain to me how it is not biased. A fair system should put everyone in the lottery. If the school is not close to your home, it is also not everyone's problem. Do not call fair a system that is not. Call it something else. And it is discriminartory: A sibling has 100% chances to get into the program. My child has 1 in 300. Is that fair?

But the sibling's older sibling had the same 1 in 300 chance. It's really the family entering the lottery, however "fair" it may be.

THIS

[Anonymous]

I am sorry, but I disagree and there is no interest or effort in making a truly fair or transparent system. Even if the family goes in the lottery if they have 4 kids, then each individual kid chance is HIGHER than a single child family, IT IS NOT FAIR. Paint it with the color you want. This is a discussion that goes back to posts of 2009. This year there is a 28 siblings, each class has 26 kids, there are two classes. That is 53.8% of the inmersion kids are siblings that DID NOT GO INTO A FAIR LOTTERY BUT A PRIVILEGED SPOT. I am sorry, that is NOT FAIR ANY WAY YOU SEE IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sorry, but I disagree and there is no interest or effort in making a truly fair or transparent system. Even if the family goes in the lottery if they have 4 kids, then each individual kid chance is HIGHER than a single child family, IT IS NOT FAIR. Paint it with the color you want. This is a discussion that goes back to posts of 2009. This year there is a 28 siblings, each class has 26 kids, there are two classes. That is 53.8% of the inmersion kids are siblings that DID NOT GO INTO A FAIR LOTTERY BUT A PRIVILEGED SPOT. I am sorry, that is NOT FAIR ANY WAY YOU SEE IT.

Yikes.

OP, I wouldn't make any choices based on your family getting a spot in the immersion program. It is very very unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Also, if your child already speaks French, he will be bored to tears and the teacher and all the other parents will be extremely irritated with you. It is a program for kids who don't speak the language.

[Anonymous]

I have nothing against the idea of the program, but I do have issues when things are clearly a) not transparent, b) not fair, c0 not public. Especially when me, and you, and everyone is paying for this. The moment that siblings are favored, not to speak of tweens: of one gets in, the other does too, even if the draw tells the contrary. We are not here to fulfill the convenience of the parents. Every child should have the same chance, but is not the case. Of course, those that defend the process is bc probably they are in the system and all their children will benefit from it, or b...i do not even know how anyone can support a system that is simply, biased. Anyway: I had enough of this. Those thinking about it: chances are slim. For first grade, last year were two spots. This year this year, one spot. There were years with zero spots. Projection to next year (per school coordinator) one spot. Of course, none of this is public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing against the idea of the program, but I do have issues when things are clearly a) not transparent, b) not fair, c0 not public. Especially when me, and you, and everyone is paying for this. The moment that siblings are favored, not to speak of tweens: of one gets in, the other does too, even if the draw tells the contrary. We are not here to fulfill the convenience of the parents. Every child should have the same chance, but is not the case. Of course, those that defend the process is bc probably they are in the system and all their children will benefit from it, or b...i do not even know how anyone can support a system that is simply, biased. Anyway: I had enough of this. Those thinking about it: chances are slim. For first grade, last year were two spots. This year this year, one spot. There were years with zero spots. Projection to next year (per school coordinator) one spot. Of course, none of this is public.

I don't see how it is not transparent--they told you there is sibling preference--no one tried to hide that--they even told you about the number of kids who got in this year due to sibling preference...so, to me that sounds like they weer being quite open about information that they themselves might feel some discomfort about.

As for not fair, I think that it is definitely surprising that a whole class was taken up with siblings and yet I disagree with you in calling it unfair--there is a sibling preference policy and it was observed. How is it unfair of them to enforce their own policy? If you are saying that simply having the policy is unfair, I'd point you to the other responses your comments have generated on this score--folks need to drop off kids at one location and if one kid speaks French it helps for the others to do so, too.

Finally, regarding it not being public--how are we all talking about it if it is not public?

I know the odds are not great and that it didn't work out in your case, but just because you didn't get what you hoped for does not mean the situation lacks transparency, is unfair or that anyone who perceives it differently from you 'must' be benefitting from this system. BTW, I am the parent of an only child who did get in.

[Anonymous]

Public=a public website, not having to call and ask for the information. It is a public system, therefore, it should be publicized in an easily accessible portal.
Fair: The fact that there is a policy in place doesn't make it fair. I disagree with the policy, and I wish I had the voice to change it.
Siblings: I insist, beyond the policy, that it is not a fair system because it favors an individual over another one. That immediately excludes the "lottery" aspect. Call it selection, but I am sure that it is not politically correct calling it "selection".
Lastly: the system shouldn't be thought to "facilitate" the life of the selected family. It is not my problem. If I want my child to do something (if he/she wants, of course) I will do the effort. Why do Montgomery county care about the logistics of the family? One child can speak to the other in French (or the desire language), is absolutely not a valid argument. Why? Again: is your choice as a parent to put your child through that. Why MoCo has to care about how are you going to make sure that he/she practice her French? It is your responsibility as a parent. In my opinion, equal opportunity for every child is the only valid argument. The system doesn't proved that equal opportunity. That is my argument. The reason I react if bc of the invalid answers I got, the attitude of the people in the program and the ill-concieved system. Again: slim ods, I am for it. Favoritism, I am not. And it does reduce the chances for others.
And again: public means public access to everyone, so nobody has to ask in a forum like this what is going on. I am sure you know what I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public=a public website, not having to call and ask for the information. It is a public system, therefore, it should be publicized in an easily accessible portal.
Fair: The fact that there is a policy in place doesn't make it fair. I disagree with the policy, and I wish I had the voice to change it.
Siblings: I insist, beyond the policy, that it is not a fair system because it favors an individual over another one. That immediately excludes the "lottery" aspect. Call it selection, but I am sure that it is not politically correct calling it "selection".
Lastly: the system shouldn't be thought to "facilitate" the life of the selected family. It is not my problem. If I want my child to do something (if he/she wants, of course) I will do the effort. Why do Montgomery county care about the logistics of the family? One child can speak to the other in French (or the desire language), is absolutely not a valid argument. Why? Again: is your choice as a parent to put your child through that. Why MoCo has to care about how are you going to make sure that he/she practice her French? It is your responsibility as a parent. In my opinion, equal opportunity for every child is the only valid argument. The system doesn't proved that equal opportunity. That is my argument. The reason I react if bc of the invalid answers I got, the attitude of the people in the program and the ill-concieved system. Again: slim ods, I am for it. Favoritism, I am not. And it does reduce the chances for others.
And again: public means public access to everyone, so nobody has to ask in a forum like this what is going on. I am sure you know what I mean.

You are having an online tantrum and sound unhinged.

The information is public. It is available at the MCPS website and via phone fro m MCPS.

Sibling preference is fair from many of our perspectives. Fairness is not a factual matter. It is a matter of opinion.