My oldest is at RCF and my youngest got a spot for K - what do you think about me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the immersion have a sibling link but not any of the choice magnets? Aren't those lottery based, too?

Which choice magnets? There was a family in our neighborhood who had all three of her boys at the aerospace technology magnet program at Parkland. I highly doubt that all three of them got in through a random lottery.

Choice MS magnets have sibling preference.

All choice MS magnets? I didn't know this.

I don't think sibling preference is fair. You could potentially have one year where almost no one without a sibling link can get in. It should be an individual lottery, not family lottery.

So? Each year, most kids who want to get in won't get in. Whether you won't get in because your particular lottery number wasn't randomly chosen or because you don't have the sibling preference doesn't really make a difference. Having the sibling preference provides a benefit to the program and the families by enriching the sense of community and allowing families with more than one child in the program to speak the language at home to each other. Not having the preference doesn't provide a benefit to the program. It just lets other families in the county feel like it's more "fair." Maybe I might have a different opinion if my child had applied to the program, but I have no dog in this fight, so this is just my objective opinion about it.

PP here. I have no dog in this particular fight, either. I don't have a kid in immersion. But, I do have a kid in another magnet. Yes, the program should be "fair" to all the families. In what sense should a school program NOT ever be fair?

The benefit of the program is to enrich the student, and spread the awareness of foreign languages. Better to spread that across the county than keep it in select families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the immersion have a sibling link but not any of the choice magnets? Aren't those lottery based, too?

Which choice magnets? There was a family in our neighborhood who had all three of her boys at the aerospace technology magnet program at Parkland. I highly doubt that all three of them got in through a random lottery.

Choice MS magnets have sibling preference.

All choice MS magnets? I didn't know this.

I don't think sibling preference is fair. You could potentially have one year where almost no one without a sibling link can get in. It should be an individual lottery, not family lottery.

So? Each year, most kids who want to get in won't get in. Whether you won't get in because your particular lottery number wasn't randomly chosen or because you don't have the sibling preference doesn't really make a difference. Having the sibling preference provides a benefit to the program and the families by enriching the sense of community and allowing families with more than one child in the program to speak the language at home to each other. Not having the preference doesn't provide a benefit to the program. It just lets other families in the county feel like it's more "fair." Maybe I might have a different opinion if my child had applied to the program, but I have no dog in this fight, so this is just my objective opinion about it.

PP here. I have no dog in this particular fight, either. I don't have a kid in immersion. But, I do have a kid in another magnet. Yes, the program should be "fair" to all the families. In what sense should a school program NOT ever be fair?

The benefit of the program is to enrich the student, and spread the awareness of foreign languages. Better to spread that across the county than keep it in select families.

My point is there's nothing unfair about a sibling preference. It just feels unfair to someone who doesn't get in, particularly because they feel like it's because of the sibling preference (when really they probably wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

"Spreading it across the county" just makes it more likely that they won't continue with the language after the program ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My point is there's nothing unfair about a sibling preference. It just feels unfair to someone who doesn't get in, particularly because they feel like it's because of the sibling preference (when really they probably wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

"Spreading it across the county" just makes it more likely that they won't continue with the language after the program ends.

Sibling admissions are not inherently unfair, I guess, if MCPS wants admissions to reflect equal access for families. But I don't think that admissions should reflect equal access for families. Admissions should reflect equal access for individual students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the immersion have a sibling link but not any of the choice magnets? Aren't those lottery based, too?

Which choice magnets? There was a family in our neighborhood who had all three of her boys at the aerospace technology magnet program at Parkland. I highly doubt that all three of them got in through a random lottery.

Choice MS magnets have sibling preference.

All choice MS magnets? I didn't know this.

I don't think sibling preference is fair. You could potentially have one year where almost no one without a sibling link can get in. It should be an individual lottery, not family lottery.

So? Each year, most kids who want to get in won't get in. Whether you won't get in because your particular lottery number wasn't randomly chosen or because you don't have the sibling preference doesn't really make a difference. Having the sibling preference provides a benefit to the program and the families by enriching the sense of community and allowing families with more than one child in the program to speak the language at home to each other. Not having the preference doesn't provide a benefit to the program. It just lets other families in the county feel like it's more "fair." Maybe I might have a different opinion if my child had applied to the program, but I have no dog in this fight, so this is just my objective opinion about it.

PP here. I have no dog in this particular fight, either. I don't have a kid in immersion. But, I do have a kid in another magnet. Yes, the program should be "fair" to all the families. In what sense should a school program NOT ever be fair?

The benefit of the program is to enrich the student, and spread the awareness of foreign languages. Better to spread that across the county than keep it in select families.

My point is there's nothing unfair about a sibling preference. It just feels unfair to someone who doesn't get in, particularly because they feel like it's because of the sibling preference (when really they probably wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

"Spreading it across the county" just makes it more likely that they won't continue with the language after the program ends.

Of course sibling preference is unfair. It's supposed to be an individual lottery, not a family lottery. I bet you would think it unfair if siblings got preference at elite universities (I know, some elite universities do have some bias towards familial relationships with the school).

I have news for you... the majority of the kids in immersion won't be able to speak the language very well as adults. I speak two languages, one is my parents' language. I barely speak it now because I don't use it much. Unless you practice that language very often in everyday conversation, it's very difficult to keep up with it.

I also learned a 3rd language in school. My ability to speak this language is even worse because, again, I rarely had opportunity to use it. I did use it when I visited that country, but it was very basic.

Most likely, a child will continue with that language in MS/HS since language is a requirement. So, the whole "it makes it less likely for them to not continue" is not a good reason, and I doubt this is the reason that mcps offers language immersion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the immersion have a sibling link but not any of the choice magnets? Aren't those lottery based, too?

Which choice magnets? There was a family in our neighborhood who had all three of her boys at the aerospace technology magnet program at Parkland. I highly doubt that all three of them got in through a random lottery.

Choice MS magnets have sibling preference.

All choice MS magnets? I didn't know this.

I don't think sibling preference is fair. You could potentially have one year where almost no one without a sibling link can get in. It should be an individual lottery, not family lottery.

So? Each year, most kids who want to get in won't get in. Whether you won't get in because your particular lottery number wasn't randomly chosen or because you don't have the sibling preference doesn't really make a difference. Having the sibling preference provides a benefit to the program and the families by enriching the sense of community and allowing families with more than one child in the program to speak the language at home to each other. Not having the preference doesn't provide a benefit to the program. It just lets other families in the county feel like it's more "fair." Maybe I might have a different opinion if my child had applied to the program, but I have no dog in this fight, so this is just my objective opinion about it.

PP here. I have no dog in this particular fight, either. I don't have a kid in immersion. But, I do have a kid in another magnet. Yes, the program should be "fair" to all the families. In what sense should a school program NOT ever be fair?

The benefit of the program is to enrich the student, and spread the awareness of foreign languages. Better to spread that across the county than keep it in select families.

My point is there's nothing unfair about a sibling preference. It just feels unfair to someone who doesn't get in, particularly because they feel like it's because of the sibling preference (when really they probably wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

"Spreading it across the county" just makes it more likely that they won't continue with the language after the program ends.

Of course sibling preference is unfair. It's supposed to be an individual lottery, not a family lottery. I bet you would think it unfair if siblings got preference at elite universities (I know, some elite universities do have some bias towards familial relationships with the school).

I have news for you... the majority of the kids in immersion won't be able to speak the language very well as adults. I speak two languages, one is my parents' language. I barely speak it now because I don't use it much. Unless you practice that language very often in everyday conversation, it's very difficult to keep up with it.

I also learned a 3rd language in school. My ability to speak this language is even worse because, again, I rarely had opportunity to use it. I did use it when I visited that country, but it was very basic.

Most likely, a child will continue with that language in MS/HS since language is a requirement. So, the whole "it makes it less likely for them to not continue" is not a good reason, and I doubt this is the reason that mcps offers language immersion.

You're really just proving my point wrt the bolded. Also your argument for why a sibling preference is unfair assumes that it's "supposed to be" an individual rather than family lottery. Why? Who says? You're basically saying it's unfair because it goes against your expectations of fairness. Your elite universities analogy is ridiculous because admission is not based on a lottery, but on merit. So of course a sibling preference would be unfair in that situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the immersion have a sibling link but not any of the choice magnets? Aren't those lottery based, too?

Which choice magnets? There was a family in our neighborhood who had all three of her boys at the aerospace technology magnet program at Parkland. I highly doubt that all three of them got in through a random lottery.

Choice MS magnets have sibling preference.

All choice MS magnets? I didn't know this.

I don't think sibling preference is fair. You could potentially have one year where almost no one without a sibling link can get in. It should be an individual lottery, not family lottery.

So? Each year, most kids who want to get in won't get in. Whether you won't get in because your particular lottery number wasn't randomly chosen or because you don't have the sibling preference doesn't really make a difference. Having the sibling preference provides a benefit to the program and the families by enriching the sense of community and allowing families with more than one child in the program to speak the language at home to each other. Not having the preference doesn't provide a benefit to the program. It just lets other families in the county feel like it's more "fair." Maybe I might have a different opinion if my child had applied to the program, but I have no dog in this fight, so this is just my objective opinion about it.

PP here. I have no dog in this particular fight, either. I don't have a kid in immersion. But, I do have a kid in another magnet. Yes, the program should be "fair" to all the families. In what sense should a school program NOT ever be fair?

The benefit of the program is to enrich the student, and spread the awareness of foreign languages. Better to spread that across the county than keep it in select families.

My point is there's nothing unfair about a sibling preference. It just feels unfair to someone who doesn't get in, particularly because they feel like it's because of the sibling preference (when really they probably wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

"Spreading it across the county" just makes it more likely that they won't continue with the language after the program ends.

Of course sibling preference is unfair. It's supposed to be an individual lottery, not a family lottery. I bet you would think it unfair if siblings got preference at elite universities (I know, some elite universities do have some bias towards familial relationships with the school).

I have news for you... the majority of the kids in immersion won't be able to speak the language very well as adults. I speak two languages, one is my parents' language. I barely speak it now because I don't use it much. Unless you practice that language very often in everyday conversation, it's very difficult to keep up with it.

I also learned a 3rd language in school. My ability to speak this language is even worse because, again, I rarely had opportunity to use it. I did use it when I visited that country, but it was very basic.

Most likely, a child will continue with that language in MS/HS since language is a requirement. So, the whole "it makes it less likely for them to not continue" is not a good reason, and I doubt this is the reason that mcps offers language immersion.

You're really just proving my point wrt the bolded. Also your argument for why a sibling preference is unfair assumes that it's "supposed to be" an individual rather than family lottery. Why? Who says? You're basically saying it's unfair because it goes against your expectations of fairness. Your elite universities analogy is ridiculous because admission is not based on a lottery, but on merit. So of course a sibling preference would be unfair in that situation.

You honestly think two kids would use a foreign language to communicate when they are at home? My siblings and I always communicated in English, with or without the presence of my parents.

Who says it should be individual lottery. vs family? A lot of people. Analogy of elite univ. is actually pretty good because many teens don't get in simply by merit. Sometimes, it's purely by luck, and sometimes, family connection. In any case, these are private institutions for the most part. Public elite unv. don't really look at sibling preference, and mcps is a public school system.

[Anonymous]

" I'm not upset that you used the system that was there, but I hope the system is changed. "

+1
I think the number of people who believe the sibling preference is fair is roughly equal to the number of people with a child in the program that has younger siblings. It's ridiculous to try to argue it's fair. It's just not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" I'm not upset that you used the system that was there, but I hope the system is changed. "

+1
I think the number of people who believe the sibling preference is fair is roughly equal to the number of people with a child in the program that has younger siblings. It's ridiculous to try to argue it's fair. It's just not.

Exactly, just be honest. If I was in immersion I would put all my kids in if that is the system that was in place. But I couldn't look at anyone with a straight face and say it was fair.

[Anonymous]

Of course you should take the spot! As teachers, my colleagues and I fully, 100% support the sibling link. It helps children and families be more invested in the school and program. It builds a strong sense of school community and parental support for the school. It takes a LOT more parental involvement and volunteerism to make immersion programs successful. I fully support the sibling link and also fully support expansion of the immersion program.

[Anonymous]

Amen.