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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.