Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the moment, DCPS handles the Oyster-Adams lottery. Oyster-Adams is a "school of right," which means that if you live within boundary, your kids enroll there no matter your language dominance. DCPS does not assign lottery numbers based on a balance of Spanish or English speakers.

Not correct at all. Lottery IS based on language dominace and the school already has this control. Puzzlingly, they choose to admit/allow about 20% English OOB kids (many as grandfathered siblings of people who move OOB), then complain about the language balance being too English in primary.

But that's only for PK4, right? There aren't really any lottery seats available in K and up, as far as I can tell, except for maybe 1 or 2 a year.

So they do have some control of PK4 admissions, and can direct Spanish speaking kids there, but very little after that.

No. Actually only about 35% of OA is in-boundary (http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/oyster-adams+bilingual+school). This vairies a bit by grade - and is it's higher in younger grades and lower in older grades. OA runs two lotteries - one for Spanish speaking families and one for English speaking families. To maintain language ballance the lottery accepts almost exclusively Spanish speaking families (which make up 50% of the school population).

As an outsider with no stake in the game (I have two of my children at WIS, and they will stay despite the crushing cost), I'm curious about parents' blanket acceptance that the 50/50 model is crucial. WIS is not 50/50 at all. There are 4 main languages of instruction (Spanish, French, or Dutch; and English for all), and although you will hear many languages on the playground, English is absolutely the main playground language, because it's the only language that all children know. Many children come in knowing none of the 4 academic languages because they speak one or more other languages at home, yet they all pick up both English and the other chosen academic language (oral and written) very quickly, and most are considered bilingual/biliterate in English and the other WIS language at some point during primary school.

So while I certainly understand why parents might WANT a 50/50 model for political and social reasons, is the research really unequivocal that it's the only good model academically? If so, many international and U.N. schools would seem to be doing it all wrong.


You are exactly right! The research says that at least 1/3 or more of the children/speakers must come from homes where the target language is spoken (Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)). The ideal is 50/50, but the research acknowledges that this is rarely achieved. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that there is even one dual immersion school in DC that achieves this balance consistently throughout each grade. The key is full immersion in PK and K. How hard is this to implement if Mundo Verde did it in one year?!?
I am an IB parent who attended several meetings on this issue. This memo clearly reflects the admins/teacher’s desire to have one campus for their own convenience. If the intent was to do what is best for the students, then the admin. would focus on improving the school as a neighborhood school. How difficult is it to stop admitting kids who are OOB and come from English-speaking homes (admitted via the Span-dom. lottery thanks to their bilingual preschools)? How difficult is it to admit a larger percentage of truly Span-dom. kids via the PK lottery (this would help to balance the influx of mostly English speaking kids who enroll in K)? If Oyster need more kids who come from Span. speaking homes, why won’t someone go over to Mount Pleasant (about 1.5 miles away), and start handing out/posting flyers IN SPANISH inviting these families to apply for the lottery? Oh, I know why…that would make it more difficult for the principal to steal the school from Woodley Park and create her own (oops, I meant citywide magnet) school in ONE building. Can Monica just please leave and go start her bilingual charter in whatever neighborhood she chooses. We’re not giving Oyster up without a fight.

Anonymous wrote:

At the moment, DCPS handles the Oyster-Adams lottery. Oyster-Adams is a "school of right," which means that if you live within boundary, your kids enroll there no matter your language dominance. DCPS does not assign lottery numbers based on a balance of Spanish or English speakers.

Not correct at all. Lottery IS based on language dominace and the school already has this control. Puzzlingly, they choose to admit/allow about 20% English OOB kids (many as grandfathered siblings of people who move OOB), then complain about the language balance being too English in primary.

But that's only for PK4, right? There aren't really any lottery seats available in K and up, as far as I can tell, except for maybe 1 or 2 a year.

So they do have some control of PK4 admissions, and can direct Spanish speaking kids there, but very little after that.

At the moment, DCPS handles the Oyster-Adams lottery. Oyster-Adams is a "school of right," which means that if you live within boundary, your kids enroll there no matter your language dominance. DCPS does not assign lottery numbers based on a balance of Spanish or English speakers.

Not correct at all. Lottery IS based on language dominace and the school already has this control. Puzzlingly, they choose to admit/allow about 20% English OOB kids (many as grandfathered siblings of people who move OOB), then complain about the language balance being too English in primary.

This proposal makes clear to me that the LSAT and administration simply want to serve a different population and have more control over the student (and parent) population. Instead of looking at how to better meet the needs of and retain current student through middle school, they blame the families for leaving and label them as not committed (despite the fact that the data clearly show that the overwhelming majority of families are committee to the model). When an organization stops asking how it can do better and instead blames the people it is trying to serve for problems, learning and potential are stilted.

TOTALLY.

There is a tendency to blame parents for "not being committed" to the bilingual model all the way through middle school, when all parents are doing is objectively looking at what the school has to offer at the middle school level versus other schools. When the reasons parents pull their kids are revealed (no math differentiation, mediocre science, substandard facilities (seen the stairs recently?), the school's response is to get very defensive and dig in their heels instead of saying, "Geez, people are leaving for the exact same reasons, year after year! How can we fix this?" Their response? Take away Deal as an option to force families to stay in a weak program!

Anonymous wrote:She's been pretty vocal about her desire to move the school, while admitting that Woodley Park residents are stacked against such a move. Yet, that is still the recommendation the principal and the LSAT are putting forth, and presenting it as the majority desire of the entire school parent community.

And this is what burns me up.

PS: Nice summary.

Anonymous wrote:Could someone break down the problem here?

From what I can gather:

The principal and some members of the Oyster-Adams community are unhappy with the balance of native Spanish and native English speakers in just about every grade. In the elementary years, the balance is 60% English, 40% Spanish (roughly). In the middle school years, this reverses to 60% Spanish and 40% English, due to attrition to other middle schools (Deal, or private). Ideally, they would like it to be 50-50.

In response to this, the principal and some members of the currently school community would like to revisit ways to address this issue and revert it back to a 50-50 mix. In order to do this, they feel they must wrest control of admissions. At the moment, DCPS handles the Oyster-Adams lottery. Oyster-Adams is a "school of right," which means that if you live within boundary, your kids enroll there no matter your language dominance. DCPS does not assign lottery numbers based on a balance of Spanish or English speakers.

Because of Oyster's location, the in-boundary kids are overwhelmingly native English-speaking from a high-income level bracket. Instead of admitting an equal number of native Spanish speakers at the elementary level, which would lead to over-crowding, Oyster-Adams does not enroll more than they can physically handle. From a numbers standpoint this is squeezing out the Hispanic population, the majority of which, historically, has been first generation American born children from poor immigrant families.

Because of DCPS's intentions to redraw some boundary lines, the Oyster-Adams principal and some members of the school community have decided that they would like to have a voice in any boundary changes, and are also taking this opportunity to put forward some other options to relieve possible overcrowding in the future, if they are to retain the 50-50 mix. Some of these options have included: moving the school physically, narrowing the boundaries, expanding the school by constructing new wings to accomodate more children, consolidating the school into one building for administrative ease, taking the Oyster-Adams program and turning it into a magnet school with a city-wide lottery, or a combination of those options.

As you might imagine, there is angst among the parent community, the Woodley Park residents who want the school to remain as it is, and the principal who wants to move the school to one location, expand the special needs/inclusion program, and control admissions.

Unanswered questions: does Kaya Henderson even care what the parent community says? Does a principal get to move in to a school, decide she can run it better somewhere else without the constraints of the system under which she is currently employed, and move it? Will Henderson's office bother to read the 30+ page "report" sent to them by the LSAT and Oyster-Adams faculty?

I think the "problem" is that the English speaking Woodley Park residents want the school to remain a bilingual school of right, while the principal feels that it needs to better serve the Hispanic population, in a more Hispanic neighborhood. She's been pretty vocal about her desire to move the school, while admitting that Woodley Park residents are stacked against such a move. Yet, that is still the recommendation the principal and the LSAT are putting forth, and presenting it as the majority desire of the entire school parent community.

That's about all I can figure, and that probably isn't that clear. Hope it helps.

Anonymous wrote:

As an outsider with no stake in the game (I have two of my children at WIS, and they will stay despite the crushing cost), I'm curious about parents' blanket acceptance that the 50/50 model is crucial. WIS is not 50/50 at all. There are 4 main languages of instruction (Spanish, French, or Dutch; and English for all), and although you will hear many languages on the playground, English is absolutely the main playground language, because it's the only language that all children know. Many children come in knowing none of the 4 academic languages because they speak one or more other languages at home, yet they all pick up both English and the other chosen academic language (oral and written) very quickly, and most are considered bilingual/biliterate in English and the other WIS language at some point during primary school.

So while I certainly understand why parents might WANT a 50/50 model for political and social reasons, is the research really unequivocal that it's the only good model academically? If so, many international and U.N. schools would seem to be doing it all wrong.

Also as an interested outsider (Mundo Verde parent), I think a key difference is the full immersion for preK and K at WIS:

http://www.wis.edu/admissions/language-options-and-requirements/index.aspx

I don't think Oyster does this, so the kids aren't really getting 50% exposure in Spanish, because that would depend on a 50-50 balance in spoken language among the kids, which is obviously not the case. So in order to really push to get more Spanish exposure, you would need to have instruction only in Spanish for the younger kids, so they can build up stronger Spanish proficiency, before switching to 50-50 instruction in first grade so they can also work on English reading, vocab, etc.

It's interesting as a Mundo Verde parent because last year the school was 50-50, but they noticed a similar pattern to Oyster of English being the dominant language between the kids themselves, so they didn't get enough Spanish exposure, so they switched to full time Spanish instruction for ps3 and pk4 this year, and ps3, pk4 and K next year and beyond. Like the LSAT report said, if you can't control your enrollment to truly balance the students out, you need to do something to get more Spanish exposure for the kids. It seems like full immersion in the younger years is a part of this.

Anonymous wrote:In thinking about the future of the school, and particularly in discussing the "two way immersion model", I think it's important to recognize what teachers acknowledge privately --- the school does not do a very good job of teaching Spanish to English dominant kids or of teaching Spanish grammar and orthography (i.e. Spanish as language) to any kids. There are two reasons for this:

- Everyone seems to assume that English dominant kids will "just pick up" Spanish, so they don't teach Spanish as a second language, they just speak it at the kids.

- English is the language of the playground, lunchroom and and in fact ANY student-student conversation at the school. All day every day. Bringing in more kids who have a Spanish speaking grandparent or parent but who speak and prefer English (like many current "Spanish dominant" kids) will not change this dynamic . Instruction in Spanish is not Spanish immersion. All of the true English learners I know who've gone through the school have developed fabulous English in a short time... and lost ground in Spanish.

As an outsider with no stake in the game (I have two of my children at WIS, and they will stay despite the crushing cost), I'm curious about parents' blanket acceptance that the 50/50 model is crucial. WIS is not 50/50 at all. There are 4 main languages of instruction (Spanish, French, or Dutch; and English for all), and although you will hear many languages on the playground, English is absolutely the main playground language, because it's the only language that all children know. Many children come in knowing none of the 4 academic languages because they speak one or more other languages at home, yet they all pick up both English and the other chosen academic language (oral and written) very quickly, and most are considered bilingual/biliterate in English and the other WIS language at some point during primary school.

So while I certainly understand why parents might WANT a 50/50 model for political and social reasons, is the research really unequivocal that it's the only good model academically? If so, many international and U.N. schools would seem to be doing it all wrong.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Woodley Park just can't support a Spanish-language immersion school based on in-boundary students. I agree that Oyster should become a magnet school so they can keep the 50/50 balance. That is impossible with the demographics of Woodley Park.

Based on what?? Please read the proposals the working groups put together. These provide clear options for how to maintain the 50/50 language balance and keep the school where it is currently located (and in some cases even expand). In fact, it looks like the idea to use an expanded Adams building for the location of a city-wide magnet program that the LSAT put forward - uses the Adams architectural drawings put together by a member of the expand committee.

It seems like Woodley Park just can't support a Spanish-language immersion school based on in-boundary students. I agree that Oyster should become a magnet school so they can keep the 50/50 balance. That is impossible with the demographics of Woodley Park.

The other DCPS that have dual language programs are in neighborhoods with a much greater concentration of native Spanish speakers.

It seems like Woodley Park could have a really great "regular" elementary school (meaning, non-immersion).

Can't we just let Oyster become the O after JKL and M, kidnap the language-related staff at Oyster and hijack the Reed building and turn it into Adams Morgan Bilingual School @ Reed or somesuch, like they've done at all these Hill schools?

Why isn't this just a much better idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes clear to me that the LSAT and administration simply want to serve a different population and have more control over the student (and parent) population. Instead of looking at how to better meet the needs of and retain current student through middle school, they blame the families for leaving and label them as not committed (despite the fact that the data clearly show that the overwhelming majority of families are committee to the model). When an organization stops asking how it can do better and instead blames the people it is trying to serve for problems, learning and potential are stilted.

Yes, to me this is THE problem. The administration wants to blame parents for exercising their right to choose and work to take away that right rather than honestly asking what they could be doing better. This speaks volumes.

Yes, and the suggestion in the LSAT recommendation of removing Deal as a feeder middle school to combat the "lack of commitment" is crazy. How about improving the middle school component and addressing concerns instead?

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes clear to me that the LSAT and administration simply want to serve a different population and have more control over the student (and parent) population. Instead of looking at how to better meet the needs of and retain current student through middle school, they blame the families for leaving and label them as not committed (despite the fact that the data clearly show that the overwhelming majority of families are committee to the model). When an organization stops asking how it can do better and instead blames the people it is trying to serve for problems, learning and potential are stilted.

Yes, to me this is THE problem. The administration wants to blame parents for exercising their right to choose and work to take away that right rather than honestly asking what they could be doing better. This speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:OA is a neighborhood school. It is THE school the serves the children who live within its boundaries. It has been in the community as a bilingual school for over 40 years. If folks want to start another city-wide bi-lingual magnet school - that's great and I fully support it. But that school would not be Oyster-Adams. If some staff and faculty want to work in another school that’s fine too. But, suggesting that the community process or the survey data collected from a representative sample of the entire community support that approach is simply wrong and deceiving.

Yes – the district and the OA administration should look at research. However, there is no research that I’m aware of that suggests that a city-wide magnet school would improve outcomes for children (and aside from research there are other proposals that meet the many goals of both the community and the district better than a city-wide magnet program). There is however, research that suggests neighborhood schools improve child outcomes and parent and community involvement.

This proposal makes clear to me that the LSAT and administration simply want to serve a different population and have more control over the student (and parent) population. Instead of looking at how to better meet the needs of and retain current student through middle school, they blame the families for leaving and label them as not committed (despite the fact that the data clearly show that the overwhelming majority of families are committee to the model). When an organization stops asking how it can do better and instead blames the people it is trying to serve for problems, learning and potential are stilted.

YES!!!!