Thoughts on Oysters Changes to the bilingual program - opinions from parents in the school???

[Anonymous]

I think most other models have one teacher per classroom.

Two teachers per classroom is going to be a tough sell to the public -- in generally, given the citywide teacher-to-student ratio, but also because whose children currently attend Oyster. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most other models have one teacher per classroom.

Two teachers per classroom is going to be a tough sell to the public -- in generally, given the citywide teacher-to-student ratio, but also because whose children currently attend Oyster. Thoughts?

Can't speak for other immersion programs, but Yu Ying has two highly qualified teachers per classroom (two each in both the English and Chinese classrooms).

[Anonymous]

Re: Yu Ying: This suggests there is no "state-of-the-art" model. I think having two Native teachers in the classroom is wonderful for younger children, say through Grade 3 or 4, but it's expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Yu Ying: This suggests there is no "state-of-the-art" model. I think having two Native teachers in the classroom is wonderful for younger children, say through Grade 3 or 4, but it's expensive.

I'm not sure there is a "state-of-the-art" model for immersion education. I think what we have is a wealth of working models, some of which may work better than others. I'm really interested in the subject of language immersion, and am totally willing to accept that variation in models can make sense given such variables as different target languages, full/partial/dual immersion, other cultural factors, class sizes, class ages, etc.

Yes, two native teachers in the classroom is expensive. I think this form of public investment is one of the better ones our society can choose and I hope it is a trend that continues.

[Anonymous]

Closing the achievement gap, SSL learners....

Let's look at Oyster: there are not even enough Spanish language books to go around. Really. Every single year the Spanish language teachers struggle to access appropriate materials. The school is also NOT effectively testing Spanish Language outcomes. The Aprenda tests results have NOT been transparently managed. There is not hard data on which to assess the strengths and challenges of the Spanish language program. Anything the prinicipal is referring to is purely anecdotal--for me, shaky ground on which to base such a weighty move.

Addressing any perceived SSL issue by moving around teachers and materials is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. How about focusing on the core program? Implementing research based teaching strategies that work in both languages --? Writer's Workshop, Reader's Workshop (are you even allowed to do this in DCPS anymore with the mandatory Houghton Mifflin program?--a good conversation she could have with her boss), Responsive Classroom at the lower level, small teacher student 'advisories' at the upper levels, core values replicated throughout the school.... these measures would do a lot more to bolster the school in the long run.

I would focus on being the best bilingual program possible, with a consistent pedagogical approach through the grades. Get the teachers on the same page with supportive guidance and quality professional development. Once that is up and running, see if you want to structurally rearrange the physical placement of staff and resources.

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

News Flash: Our Oyster teachers are COMPLETELY overextended. They deserve massages, not more mandates and changes on their plates. Putting them in separate classrooms will just widen the chasm between the two language realms and cultures (isn't the school's whole mission to close that divide?) and add to the logistical hurdles of cross-curricular planning across two languages.

This principal and her boss should leave the teachers exactly in place, provide professional development in the most effective teaching approaches (this should be done at all DCPS schools of course), work on horizontally and vertically aligning the curriculum, get people the supplies and dual language materials they need--and THEN , once that 'tight ship' is in place and any friction from being overextended, underguided and undersupplied has dissipated... then look at the facts on the ground and consider about reconfiguring the placement of teachers to be even more effective, or take on worthy (national) issues like closing the achievement gap.

First get the house in order; then redecorate.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, 11:38! The most bizarre aspect of the proposal poster by the OP is the idea that a leader teacher construct would eliminate all issues. It's still team teaching. I also after many years at Oyster had no idea there were so many teams on the verge of divorce, staying together for the children. Is it exaggerated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

Your comment leaves me with the impression that you seem to think that the second teacher in the classroom must use the second language so that students are clear about "content." (Do I understand you correctly?)

Yet, that is precisely what is NOT recommended in a bilingual program and what undermines fluency. When kids know that they can "get" the material they don't understand in the target language in their native language, then they don't acquire the target language as fluently. In fact, it sets up an entirely different way of thinking about language which is translation-based rather than native.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Closing the achievement gap, SSL learners....

Let's look at Oyster: there are not even enough Spanish language books to go around. Really. Every single year the Spanish language teachers struggle to access appropriate materials. The school is also NOT effectively testing Spanish Language outcomes. The Aprenda tests results have NOT been transparently managed. There is not hard data on which to assess the strengths and challenges of the Spanish language program. Anything the prinicipal is referring to is purely anecdotal--for me, shaky ground on which to base such a weighty move.

Addressing any perceived SSL issue by moving around teachers and materials is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. How about focusing on the core program? Implementing research based teaching strategies that work in both languages --? Writer's Workshop, Reader's Workshop (are you even allowed to do this in DCPS anymore with the mandatory Houghton Mifflin program?--a good conversation she could have with her boss), Responsive Classroom at the lower level, small teacher student 'advisories' at the upper levels, core values replicated throughout the school.... these measures would do a lot more to bolster the school in the long run.

I would focus on being the best bilingual program possible, with a consistent pedagogical approach through the grades. Get the teachers on the same page with supportive guidance and quality professional development. Once that is up and running, see if you want to structurally rearrange the physical placement of staff and resources.

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

News Flash: Our Oyster teachers are COMPLETELY overextended. They deserve massages, not more mandates and changes on their plates. Putting them in separate classrooms will just widen the chasm between the two language realms and cultures (isn't the school's whole mission to close that divide?) and add to the logistical hurdles of cross-curricular planning across two languages.

This principal and her boss should leave the teachers exactly in place, provide professional development in the most effective teaching approaches (this should be done at all DCPS schools of course), work on horizontally and vertically aligning the curriculum, get people the supplies and dual language materials they need--and THEN , once that 'tight ship' is in place and any friction from being overextended, underguided and undersupplied has dissipated... then look at the facts on the ground and consider about reconfiguring the placement of teachers to be even more effective, or take on worthy (national) issues like closing the achievement gap.

First get the house in order; then redecorate.

Do you have ACTUAL experience in the school? I can tell that you're the same poster who trashes on Oyster each and every time. What is your deal? "the principal", "her boss" - you obviously are not IN the system, so what's your beef with the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Closing the achievement gap, SSL learners....

Let's look at Oyster: there are not even enough Spanish language books to go around. Really. Every single year the Spanish language teachers struggle to access appropriate materials. The school is also NOT effectively testing Spanish Language outcomes. The Aprenda tests results have NOT been transparently managed. There is not hard data on which to assess the strengths and challenges of the Spanish language program. Anything the prinicipal is referring to is purely anecdotal--for me, shaky ground on which to base such a weighty move.

Addressing any perceived SSL issue by moving around teachers and materials is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. How about focusing on the core program? Implementing research based teaching strategies that work in both languages --? Writer's Workshop, Reader's Workshop (are you even allowed to do this in DCPS anymore with the mandatory Houghton Mifflin program?--a good conversation she could have with her boss), Responsive Classroom at the lower level, small teacher student 'advisories' at the upper levels, core values replicated throughout the school.... these measures would do a lot more to bolster the school in the long run.

I would focus on being the best bilingual program possible, with a consistent pedagogical approach through the grades. Get the teachers on the same page with supportive guidance and quality professional development. Once that is up and running, see if you want to structurally rearrange the physical placement of staff and resources.

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

News Flash: Our Oyster teachers are COMPLETELY overextended. They deserve massages, not more mandates and changes on their plates. Putting them in separate classrooms will just widen the chasm between the two language realms and cultures (isn't the school's whole mission to close that divide?) and add to the logistical hurdles of cross-curricular planning across two languages.

This principal and her boss should leave the teachers exactly in place, provide professional development in the most effective teaching approaches (this should be done at all DCPS schools of course), work on horizontally and vertically aligning the curriculum, get people the supplies and dual language materials they need--and THEN , once that 'tight ship' is in place and any friction from being overextended, underguided and undersupplied has dissipated... then look at the facts on the ground and consider about reconfiguring the placement of teachers to be even more effective, or take on worthy (national) issues like closing the achievement gap.

First get the house in order; then redecorate.

Do you have ACTUAL experience in the school? I can tell that you're the same poster who trashes on Oyster each and every time. What is your deal? "the principal", "her boss" - you obviously are not IN the system, so what's your beef with the school?

This poster is not necessarily "the same poster who trashes on Oyster each and every time" because I've been known to criticize, and I didn't write that. Never assume you're only dealing with one critic!

I'm a parent who thinks Oyster is pretty good on the whole, especially considering the alternatives, but could be made better if teachers and administrators would take more trouble to critically evaluate weaknesses and target them for improvement. I appreciate the current principal's efforts to that effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

Your comment leaves me with the impression that you seem to think that the second teacher in the classroom must use the second language so that students are clear about "content." (Do I understand you correctly?)

Yet, that is precisely what is NOT recommended in a bilingual program and what undermines fluency. When kids know that they can "get" the material they don't understand in the target language in their native language, then they don't acquire the target language as fluently. In fact, it sets up an entirely different way of thinking about language which is translation-based rather than native.

I am not sure why you think my comment intends that. The point I am making is that all Oyster teachers are handed is the DCPS set of standards and a few rules about implementation. They must work together to make sure that content is covered appropriately, avoiding redundancy and making sure to reinforce concepts such as in situations where they may be 'splitting' the subject matter, like math. I think that is what I said the first time. Very little 'translation' ever happens in the team led Oyster classroom. However, the idea that isolation in a room is what creates an 'immersion' experience is equally silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Closing the achievement gap, SSL learners....

Let's look at Oyster: there are not even enough Spanish language books to go around. Really. Every single year the Spanish language teachers struggle to access appropriate materials. The school is also NOT effectively testing Spanish Language outcomes. The Aprenda tests results have NOT been transparently managed. There is not hard data on which to assess the strengths and challenges of the Spanish language program. Anything the prinicipal is referring to is purely anecdotal--for me, shaky ground on which to base such a weighty move.

Addressing any perceived SSL issue by moving around teachers and materials is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. How about focusing on the core program? Implementing research based teaching strategies that work in both languages --? Writer's Workshop, Reader's Workshop (are you even allowed to do this in DCPS anymore with the mandatory Houghton Mifflin program?--a good conversation she could have with her boss), Responsive Classroom at the lower level, small teacher student 'advisories' at the upper levels, core values replicated throughout the school.... these measures would do a lot more to bolster the school in the long run.

I would focus on being the best bilingual program possible, with a consistent pedagogical approach through the grades. Get the teachers on the same page with supportive guidance and quality professional development. Once that is up and running, see if you want to structurally rearrange the physical placement of staff and resources.

The problem here is that the dual language classroom in Oyster is not a 'life boat'. It is a fundamental part of the program, by design. The two language teachers theoretically reinforce each other, avoiding redundancy or purposefully reinforcing concepts in the other language. Remember, what is being taught is content math, science, social studies etc) -- not just language concepts. While clearly the desired conversation between the two language teachers and the co-planning is not always happening, when it does, it is a recognized effective way of implementing two-way bilingual immersion. So why hasn't it been happening?

News Flash: Our Oyster teachers are COMPLETELY overextended. They deserve massages, not more mandates and changes on their plates. Putting them in separate classrooms will just widen the chasm between the two language realms and cultures (isn't the school's whole mission to close that divide?) and add to the logistical hurdles of cross-curricular planning across two languages.

This principal and her boss should leave the teachers exactly in place, provide professional development in the most effective teaching approaches (this should be done at all DCPS schools of course), work on horizontally and vertically aligning the curriculum, get people the supplies and dual language materials they need--and THEN , once that 'tight ship' is in place and any friction from being overextended, underguided and undersupplied has dissipated... then look at the facts on the ground and consider about reconfiguring the placement of teachers to be even more effective, or take on worthy (national) issues like closing the achievement gap.

First get the house in order; then redecorate.

Do you have ACTUAL experience in the school? I can tell that you're the same poster who trashes on Oyster each and every time. What is your deal? "the principal", "her boss" - you obviously are not IN the system, so what's your beef with the school?

?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure why you think my comment intends that. The point I am making is that all Oyster teachers are handed is the DCPS set of standards and a few rules about implementation. They must work together to make sure that content is covered appropriately, avoiding redundancy and making sure to reinforce concepts such as in situations where they may be 'splitting' the subject matter, like math. I think that is what I said the first time. Very little 'translation' ever happens in the team led Oyster classroom. However, the idea that isolation in a room is what creates an 'immersion' experience is equally silly.

Surely that's not true, or else it severely underestimates the value of the accumulated wisdom and experience in the school.

As for the idea that distinct language rooms contribute positively to the target language acquisition, there's really a wealth of data to support this.

The Oyster model really is an atypical one. Not that this is bad, but it raises the question of why certain standards should seem to be perceived as falling now (or recently) as opposed to since the inception of the program. What has changed here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure why you think my comment intends that. The point I am making is that all Oyster teachers are handed is the DCPS set of standards and a few rules about implementation. They must work together to make sure that content is covered appropriately, avoiding redundancy and making sure to reinforce concepts such as in situations where they may be 'splitting' the subject matter, like math. I think that is what I said the first time. Very little 'translation' ever happens in the team led Oyster classroom. However, the idea that isolation in a room is what creates an 'immersion' experience is equally silly.

Surely that's not true, or else it severely underestimates the value of the accumulated wisdom and experience in the school.

As for the idea that distinct language rooms contribute positively to the target language acquisition, there's really a wealth of data to support this.

The Oyster model really is an atypical one. Not that this is bad, but it raises the question of why certain standards should seem to be perceived as falling now (or recently) as opposed to since the inception of the program. What has changed here?

Have you ever seen an Oyster 'curriculum'? It is pretty much up to the teachers how to implement the standards and what approaches to use. When you separate the two language teachers, these decisions would be happening in a language split--two worlds. I do not dislike this idea, I just think there is a priority list (write a curriculum across both languages!) to put in place before creating even greater challenges for communication pathways by splitting up the teachers,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever seen an Oyster 'curriculum'? It is pretty much up to the teachers how to implement the standards and what approaches to use. When you separate the two language teachers, these decisions would be happening in a language split--two worlds. I do not dislike this idea, I just think there is a priority list (write a curriculum across both languages!) to put in place before creating even greater challenges for communication pathways by splitting up the teachers,

Do you have inside information which suggests this isn't happening or can't happen?

Not trying to be snarky here, btw. I'm genuinely interested in what you're saying but not altogether sure I'm following you completely. I know that in many immersion models this is exactly what has to be done (write a curriculum with the collaboration of the lead teachers of both languages) even though it is implemented in two classrooms.

I would have supposed that given the historical experience at Oyster (by which I mean they teachers don't have to re-invent the wheel every year) this wouldn't be such a difficult transition to make. Especially given the fact that the current curriculum as it exists has presumably already been written in collaboration both between languages but also across grade levels (i.e., so that K sets the stage for 1st, and 1st for 2nd, 2nd for 3rd etc.). I guess I'm wondering about he difference between what can be "re-freshed" or "re-paired" vs. the necessity of wholesale "re-invention."

[Anonymous]

Please pardon my typos, btw. That was "I mean the teachers don't have to..." and "I'm wondering about the difference between..."

Apologies.