There is an active Facebook page
with posts and comments on the enrollment balancing process in the Jefferson cluster. Below are my comments relating to a
post promoting more restrictive transfer policies in Portland Public Schools:
Comment 1: (1) For all the
rhetoric about transfer policies, I do not think there are possible, realistic
changes that will make significant changes in enrollments. Putting hope in
reduced transfers as the cluster’s salvation is misplaced. (2) The movement of
students because of race is complex. There is some white flight and there is,
from the documents at today’s meeting, some significant transfer (looks from
the graph to be 9-10%) of Black students from outside the Jefferson
cluster to inside. Reducing transfers generally would have an unintended
consequence of limiting those transfers of Black students back into the
cluster. (3) Just promoting English-only neighborhood schools and reduced
students
transfers has the intended or unintended consequence of limiting the
development of foreign language immersion programs (which has the unintended
consequences of limiting Portland’s
future economic development and contributions to world peace). (4) I do wonder
to what degree subtle racism by English-only neighborhood school activists is a
factor in the lack of interest in Mandarin and Japanese immersion programs for
the Black students in the Jefferson cluster. It
is not OK to leave them behind in the transition to a more bilingual education
system, and geographic access is important.
Comment 2: The world our children
will live in will be very different. Big global changes are happening. You can
chose to have your children remain English-only and fall behind, but to
restrict others from
becoming bilingual in important foreign languages at a
young age is wrong, and, if part of your thinking is that Mandarin and Japanese
are not appropriate for Black students, then we need to have a broader
discussion about racial equity in the 21st century.
Comment 3: Why give the
under-served and historically neglected (yes) a 20th century education when you
can offer them a 21st century education. Increasingly, learning a second
language is a basic need. Open up opportunity, don't close them out. ... From
my perspective, a neighborhood school can be a dual language immersion school.
I'm for giving neighborhood students top
priority and guaranteed admission to
any immersion program.... We need to give our next generations (at all levels,
not just the elite) the skills to survive, compete and shape their own futures.
But they will live in a world where China
and India will both probably
have economies twice (or more) the size of the US economy.
Comment 4: The way to make
immersion programs open to everyone is to expand them (with neighborhood
admission guaranteed, and perhaps, beyond that, priority for other nearby
neighborhoods) in different languages at accessible locations. That would
reduce commuting. We agree there should be no persistent parental engagement
requirement (I am not aware of any now, but other can speak if there are).
Currently
10% of PPS kindergarteners start at in immersion program. Last year 20% of the
parents of kindergarteners applied to get their child into an immersion
program. Those extra 10% were turned away. Most of those turned away were
English speaking students. Given sibling priorities at most, if not all, of the
immersion programs, a non-sibling, English speaking student had, I would guess,
about a 33% chance (or less) of getting admitted. I note this because I think
the parents of more English speaking students would apply if the odds were
better, pushing that 20% wanting immersion programs up to maybe 25-30%. Plus
there are reservoirs of Spanish-speaking latino students around the district,
many in ESL, that would additionally benefit from Spanish dual language
immersion programs. This would be maybe another 10% of kindergarteners, so near
term demand for immersion programs could approach 40% of incoming kindergarten
classes.
But
yes, the expansion of immersion programs will disrupt and reduce the stability
of English-only neighborhood schools, so we need to find the least disruptive
way to make this transition happen. Placing immersion programs in English-only
schools with low enrollments to make the schools more viable is one transition
strategy. Giving guaranteed admission to neighborhood students is another.
I think I take your point: we either convert each and every English-only neighborhood school to a dual language immersion school (some issues of which languages where) or we do not have immersion programs at all. I get the purity and logical consistency of that position: all schools should be equal.
To me that is an impossibly high standard which leads to conformity, blandness and a dumbing down of schools, and it breaks down at the teacher level. Not
Pragmatically, we cannot wave a magic wand and turn every English-only school into an immersion program. There are limits to the numbers of good immersion teachers we could hire in the near future (don’t get me started on the credentialing and higher ed training system for immersion teachers). Similarly, PPS has an existing faculty of monolingual English teachers who we would not want to push out on the streets. So immersion program expansions need to be phased in thoughtfully.
Perhaps some parents are not as “forward-thinking” as we all might like. Do not we as a community have a responsibility to try to bring them up to speed and to offer their children the best programs we can afford.
Learning a second language is a basic skill best learned at an early age.
I won't wish the wish you wish to wish.
Posted by: Nike Lebron 10 | January 29, 2013 at 12:10 AM