Reply to CMI vs YY for PK3?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "CMI vs YY for PK3?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]LEA is Local Education Agency - essentially its own school district so the school must accommodate anyone who gets through the lottery (unlike DCPS which can send you to a different school for different, particular need).

The term LEA is often referred to in special education/ in IEPs. DCPS, as you may know, has a crappy record with special education (to say the least). So joining all charters into one LEA would take away charters' abilities to administer their own  special ed programs. And as a parent of a kid with an IEP at an immersion charter, I would fight tooth and nail against that. Don't want to be part of DCPS/ OSSE-wide special ed. [/quote]

Right, so there's a quality-of-special-ed-programs dimension to the single lottery system underpinning DC charter admissions, stemming from the LEA arrangement specific to this municipality. While parents like you appreciate the autonomy the law affords charters in the provision of special ed services, the autonomy doesn't extend to charters establishing the language dominant lotteries DCPS uses to create dual-immersion programs. The law is, thus, a double-edged sword in promoting educational best practices. It goes so far as to prevent immersion charters from replacing upper grades drop-outs with native speakers who would enhance program quality for all students.

What from what you're saying, it sounds like states whose charter laws support screening of students can freely establish multiple lotteries to a single school. This is something I've never understood when YY parents argue that their program is at the mercy of "federal charter law" in its inability to enroll more than a tiny number of bilingual Chinese-speaking children.

Do you see a loophole in the LEA set up DC immersion charters could exploit to recruit native speakers in larger numbers without pushing the envelope on breaking charter law, or way the law could be revised to do this? Would a change in the law necessarily jeopardize the charters' ability to administer their own special ed programs?  Is there no smart way to safeguard a good policy while jettisoning a myopic one?  I know that LAMB's been in hot water with DCPC various times for creatively giving preferential treatment in admissions to Spanish-speaking students. DCPC argues that LAMB is breaking federal charter law. LAMB argues that it can't fulfill its mission responsibly without enrolling and retaining many bilingual children. The conversation goes nowhere.

Friends who've bailed from Tyler Spanish Immersion, LAMB and Mundo Verde for Oyster have convinced me that dual-immersion is not just a worthy goal, it's the only approach that works in teaching little kids from homes without native speakers to really speak languages. The truth is that YY parents on these threads decry "Tiger parents" slamming their kids' weak Mandarin without arguing for what's in their interest.
[/quote]

As I understand it, the difference between DC and other local school districts (such as the Western MA one mentioned upthread) is that Congress passed the School Reform Act, which established charters in the District. http://focusdc.org/history

So it's the problems associated with that.

I think the only way the LEAs could change the charter school law is to band together to require preference for native speakers. I know YY tried that in the past, by itself, and failed, even though there's a much smaller pool of Chinese speakers in the District than Spanish speakers, for example.

The only reason I brought up special ed administration was that someone (maybe you) suggested that a multi-charter school LEA (as I think may be common in other states, though DC is the only place where I have experience) could change the situation for attracting native speakers for the better. The Western Mass Chinese immersion school that someone mentioned upthread is open to all Massachusetts residents: http://www.pvcics.org/enrollment I don't know how they accomplish that, but here, to expand the pool of Chinese speakers, you'd have to open it up to MD and VA residents (somehow...with those governments paying I suppose). I don't know how to accomplish that. With the District involved, plus two states, it's far more complicated jurisdiction-wise than in Mass. But I agree it would be much better if YY could somehow have a larger pool of native/ near-native speakers (ABCs). [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics