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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.