Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dual Language Immersion Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community member urges deeper review of dual‑language immersion evaluation, citing missing disaggregated data
Summary
Community member Carol Fox urged the School District of Beloit Board on Feb. 18 to demand a more rigorous and disaggregated evaluation of the district’s Dual Language Immersion program, saying the report provided to the board lacked key comparisons and longitudinal measures.
During the public‑comment period on Feb. 18, Carol Fox (community member and ad hoc committee participant) urged the School District of Beloit Board to require a more rigorous evaluation of the district’s Dual Language Immersion (DLI) programming.
Main concerns raised: Fox said the DLI report the board received did not include sufficient data to evaluate program outcomes or consequences for the broader district. She argued the report relied on school‑level comparisons rather than comparing English learners in DLI programs with similar English learners not enrolled in DLI. She called for disaggregated comparisons by program participation, grade level and subgroup (special education, attendance, chronic absenteeism, discipline, poverty and gender).
Specific data requests: Fox asked the district to report longitudinal growth among students who remain in the program, MAP and other literacy/mathematics measures by program participation, retention and exit rates for DLI, reasons students leave the program, staffing turnover rates for bilingual staff, discipline and special‑education incidence in DLI versus non‑DLI classrooms, and any effects on building enrollments and class size composition.
Process concerns: Fox also criticized the DLI reviewer for consulting only staff and parents directly involved in DLI and urged the district to collect feedback from non‑DLI parents and staff, especially families who decline program participation. She recommended adding an analysis of financial impact and staffing feasibility before pursuing restructuring or expansion.
Board response: Board staff acknowledged the public comment and said the district would take feedback under consideration in future reviews. The comment was intended to prompt more complete program evaluation before structural changes.
