What happens to immersion programs with new regional programs?

[Anonymous]

I love the idea of being able to rate your choices for which immersion program you would prefer. This could in some cases help siblings stay together in the same school and possibly help families stay closer to home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

[Anonymous]

Also where is the BS matched data on OWI programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

[Anonymous]

None of this matters unless you’re in a Chinese immersion. MCPS confirmed Chinese would be the only WL option in the new Regional Program Services model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this matters unless you’re in a Chinese immersion. MCPS confirmed Chinese would be the only WL option in the new Regional Program Services model.

That's for high school.

Middle school immersion and all middle school magnet programs are TBD until they figure out whether middle schools are going to have to drop down to only one elective period a year to meet the state requirement for 60 minutes a day of math-- they will reassess after that but I suspect will just cut all the immersion and magnet programs if the state mandate stands. (Or maybe magnets will stay if they can find enough kids willing to skip all foreign language, music, arts, or other electives in order to be in a magnet and use their only elective spot for a magnet elective. That would probably solve the problem of there being way more interested kids than spaces available...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

If you make TWI programs lottery based then you'd consider them "valuable" as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

The problem with this idea is that primarily Spanish speaking kids are not evenly distributed throughout the county. One of the points of TWI is to give ELLs the opportunity to access the curriculum in their home language, while acting as the "experts" for half the day. This is a model developed specifically for integrated schools, which is not something that is easy to find in some parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

I'm not deeply familiar with the data but they have assessed these programs in the past. Notably in 2016-2017ish when they decided to weaken the sibling link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

If you make TWI programs lottery based then you'd consider them "valuable" as well

Demand is an open question. Even across the lottery based OWI programs, demand is even distributed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

I'm not deeply familiar with the data but they have assessed these programs in the past. Notably in 2016-2017ish when they decided to weaken the sibling link.

Feel free to link to the data on outcomes broken down by demographic group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

Interesting idea, but isn't part of the issue that the initial data on the TWI model (as implemented by MCPS) isn't great?

They should absolutely fix the implementation issues identified in the report but the data is kind of ridiculous and not a reason to abandon the model. They should also speak with the families involved to better understand the issues

Yeah, I'm not advocating they abandon the model, but I'm not sure the data currently makes the case for expanding the model.

Where is the OWI data that makes the case for expanding the OWI model?

Good question. AFAIK, MCPS does not make that data available. At the same time, the long, long waitlists provide some inkling that they are valuable.

If you make TWI programs lottery based then you'd consider them "valuable" as well

Demand is an open question. Even across the lottery based OWI programs, demand is even distributed.

Where is the data on demand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they could make it work through the elementary boundary study to have a two-way Spanish immersion school in every region, with space for a class of out-of-bounds kids in every grade who could lottery in?

The problem with this idea is that primarily Spanish speaking kids are not evenly distributed throughout the county. One of the points of TWI is to give ELLs the opportunity to access the curriculum in their home language, while acting as the "experts" for half the day. This is a model developed specifically for integrated schools, which is not something that is easy to find in some parts of the county.

I don't think the current TWI schools necessarily achieve 50%/50% or even close to it