B-CC MS number 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get off your high horse with threats. Please do lobby to have it removed. The BCC cluster does not welcome the program that is the most sought after in the county and the BCC cluster doesn't deserve to have it. I'd love to see it somewhere else!

NP. Immersion is a dantastic program which many BCC parents welcome and try to get into! But since it is a lottery the odds are slim. I would be sad to see it go. A vocal minority of BCC parents is against immersion because they somehow feel that immersion kids are getting something for free that a BCC parent had to pay a lot for. There is a lot of financial snobbery in our cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Just to be clear, the result in essence takes immersion out of the equation. RCF wants to go to the closer middle school. Under the option proposed by the Superintendent, they get that and the immersion program is staying put at Westland. Immersion has to be SOME part of the equation, because with a new middle school, people are going to wonder what will happen with it (especially since the local neighborhood wants to go to the new middle). I also think it is a fair position for the school to advocate not splitting up the school - why not? And now it turns out they can't have both proximity and staying together, so most people are putting an emphasis on proximity. And FYI, many, many immersion parents are fine just deferring to what the neighborhood kids want to do. Just because someone is saying that immersion was thrown under the bus, doesn't mean that reflects the views of many immersion parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Another confused poster. The PTA at RCF didn't advocate for changes based on anything specific to the immersion program at all. The board was responsible initially for proposing options which specifically considered splitting immersion from the regular program. At that point, it made sense, when getting feedback from the school, to at least have a look at how immersion opinion breaks down in comparison to the population as a whole (just as is done for other demographic groups). At the end of the day, there was little difference between how the two groups saw things.

[Anonymous]

I think option 7 is best, because of proximity. With traffic the way it is around here, it makes a great deal of sense to keep kids at the schools close to them (unless the disparities are just too large. But in this case they are not.) I'm a cces parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.

What data are you using for Westland test results? I see plenty of schools way beyond 15% Farms which BcC2 would have where test results aren't vastly different on the PARRC.

DATA from MCPS directly
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/03412.pdf
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/westlandms/homepage/Westland%20SIP%20Link%20201516%20Jan%2020.pdf

The conversation was about the achievement gap and if the demographics for B-CC#2 would help or hurt. The difference between FARMS and White kids currently at WEstland is pretty great. I personally don't care what it is at other schools, I'm concerned about my cluster and whether option 7 is going to help or hurt my child of color overcome the achievement gap. Looking at these numbers, I think we will be on this site in 4 years asking why we should proximity over academics.

Yes you are looking at grade 8 only with no comparison to other schools. If you go to Maryland report card and play around with the different schools yo can schools like Rocky hill have twice the FARMs as Westland but only slightly worse percentage wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Another confused poster. The PTA at RCF didn't advocate for changes based on anything specific to the immersion program at all. The board was responsible initially for proposing options which specifically considered splitting immersion from the regular program. At that point, it made sense, when getting feedback from the school, to at least have a look at how immersion opinion breaks down in comparison to the population as a whole (just as is done for other demographic groups). At the end of the day, there was little difference between how the two groups saw things.

Immersion parent who lives in RCF neighborhood. Option 7 is a nightmare for my child and our family. With no transportation to and from Westland, I will have to pull my child from immersion and the other 13% of in-boundary parents will probably do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Another confused poster. The PTA at RCF didn't advocate for changes based on anything specific to the immersion program at all. The board was responsible initially for proposing options which specifically considered splitting immersion from the regular program. At that point, it made sense, when getting feedback from the school, to at least have a look at how immersion opinion breaks down in comparison to the population as a whole (just as is done for other demographic groups). At the end of the day, there was little difference between how the two groups saw things.

Immersion parent who lives in RCF neighborhood. Option 7 is a nightmare for my child and our family. With no transportation to and from Westland, I will have to pull my child from immersion and the other 13% of in-boundary parents will probably do the same.

So this means no more busses from RCF to Westland in the morning and afternoon? I hadn't thought of that - this impacts out of boundary immersion families too who rely on that bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Another confused poster. The PTA at RCF didn't advocate for changes based on anything specific to the immersion program at all. The board was responsible initially for proposing options which specifically considered splitting immersion from the regular program. At that point, it made sense, when getting feedback from the school, to at least have a look at how immersion opinion breaks down in comparison to the population as a whole (just as is done for other demographic groups). At the end of the day, there was little difference between how the two groups saw things.

Immersion parent who lives in RCF neighborhood. Option 7 is a nightmare for my child and our family. With no transportation to and from Westland, I will have to pull my child from immersion and the other 13% of in-boundary parents will probably do the same.

I'm the poster you are responding to and also an immersion parent. Westland is burdensome to us too and we are out of boundary so probably much more difficult than it is for you.

However, A) Everyone knew Westland was the feeder school when they applied for Immersion and B) I have to defer to the English Academy who needs this even more than I do.

I would absolutely love any option that send us to BCC MS #2 but it looks like that won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

Another confused poster. The PTA at RCF didn't advocate for changes based on anything specific to the immersion program at all. The board was responsible initially for proposing options which specifically considered splitting immersion from the regular program. At that point, it made sense, when getting feedback from the school, to at least have a look at how immersion opinion breaks down in comparison to the population as a whole (just as is done for other demographic groups). At the end of the day, there was little difference between how the two groups saw things.

Immersion parent who lives in RCF neighborhood. Option 7 is a nightmare for my child and our family. With no transportation to and from Westland, I will have to pull my child from immersion and the other 13% of in-boundary parents will probably do the same.

So this means no more busses from RCF to Westland in the morning and afternoon? I hadn't thought of that - this impacts out of boundary immersion families too who rely on that bus.

I've already heard that they will continue the bus from RCF to Westland, so if that is what is making you pull out don't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get off your high horse with threats. Please do lobby to have it removed. The BCC cluster does not welcome the program that is the most sought after in the county and the BCC cluster doesn't deserve to have it. I'd love to see it somewhere else!

The program is so sought after because it offers a back door for parents to get out of the DCC, not because of some deep desire to learn Spanish. If that was really their priority they would have moved to Langley Park and let their kids learn it through osmosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get off your high horse with threats. Please do lobby to have it removed. The BCC cluster does not welcome the program that is the most sought after in the county and the BCC cluster doesn't deserve to have it. I'd love to see it somewhere else!

The program is so sought after because it offers a back door for parents to get out of the DCC, not because of some deep desire to learn Spanish. If that was really their priority they would have moved to Langley Park and let their kids learn it through osmosis.

Living around Spanish speaking people does not make you learn a language unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get off your high horse with threats. Please do lobby to have it removed. The BCC cluster does not welcome the program that is the most sought after in the county and the BCC cluster doesn't deserve to have it. I'd love to see it somewhere else!

The program is so sought after because it offers a back door for parents to get out of the DCC, not because of some deep desire to learn Spanish. If that was really their priority they would have moved to Langley Park and let their kids learn it through osmosis.

You are wrong. True, it may be a side benefit to some families, but believe it or not many, many people think learning a second language is a great opportunity. And honestly, you would have to be in a really crappy cluster to make the commute (especially to Westland) worth it from most places in the County. Face it, BCC just isn't that amazing. And if getting into BCC was a primary reason for people doing immersion, how do you explain the success of the other immersion programs like French?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

I think the school is crazy to include Immersion in the discussion at all. My child was in French Immersion at Sligo Creek ES five or six years ago during their boundary study and the immersion program wasn't considered in the boundary study. I got that because it was a BOUNDARY discussion about neighborhood lines, and has nothing at all to do with special or choice programs. What's sad is that you think your wishes should matter more than that of the people who live within the cluster boundaries. Why did MCPS let immersion be considered in this boundary study?

This +1000

[Anonymous]

I watched the hearing tonight, and was cracking up to see in the CCES PTA testimony that they finally clued in to the effective tactic their opponent has been using to crush them so completely. Too bad they didn’t figure it out until a week before the decision comes down. See what kind of magic can happen when you actually talk with, involve, and even (gasp!) empower your under-resourced, diverse community members? Imagine what might have been had they grasped this concept much earlier in the game, and expanded it beyond one father to their Silver Spring communities as a whole…