I think Oyster should become city wide. That'll put a stop to this rivalry of IB vs OOB. However, be prepared for the IBs families to change their tunes when they're in the same lottery as everyone else. Suddenly, it would be just fine for a native but Anglo kid to get a Span. Dom. Seat. Funny what people do when it's their own kids.

But displacement is becoming an issue for native Spanish speaking kids who are also low income at Oyster. They are being displaced by people who can afford bilingual preschools; but they cannot afford To live IB for Oyster (in other words, the regular middle class). These people are taking a native speaker's seat, and the academic experience is worse as a result. I have personally seen the clear benefit of having children who come from Spanish speaking homes in my child's class. They raise the level and pace of the Spanish curriculum for all children. They bring their culture and experiences to the class. It is just a much better experience than having a classroom full of bilingual kids from English speaking homes.

I share your goals but disagree with your analysis of the situation. The number of OOB bilingual kids from non-Spanish speaking homes will always be few because the lottery is random and the number of OOB applicants who come from Spanish speaking homes is much larger (say, at least 10 x more). So the likelihood of cases like the one that generated the earlier fight is very small and not worth the trouble worrying about to prevent.

What we have to do is support the expansion of bilingual programs throughout the city and demand that DCPS seriously devote more resources to bilingual education so that it is truly excellent. DCPS has no clear curriculum standards and guidelines for bilingual education. At DCPS, the same office in charge of ESL (dealing with the issues of DC's large immigrant population) is also in charge of bilingual education. Furthermore, it is staffed by a handful (or fewer) of people. There are 7 or more DCPS bilingual schools and now they are proposing Roosevelt HS with dual immersion. We should require proper oversight of the language component of all these programs and also make it part of the evaluation process of students and schools. What is the incentive for a school to teach the second language well if they are only measured by their English reading and math scores? This is the conversation we should have among us and with DCPS. The link below has some info

http://www.american.edu/cas/seth/bilingual/upload/AU-CONFERENCE-SEPTEMBER-27-2014_Brito.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Yes I can. I bought my house IB for Oyster without taking a seat from a native Spanish speaking child. My child (who was bilingual long before entering Oyster) entered via the English dominant lottery--because he is English dominant and a non-native speaker. I could have easily lied to get my son into Oyster for PK (and saved us about $20k), but he would have taken a NATIVE speaking child's seat. His current class has a majority of students with at least one native Spanish speaking parent, and it is a much better academic experience for him as a result.

I am 22:33. I am not arguing whether you took the seat of a native Spanish speaking child (which, FYI, mine is). I am challenging the assertion disqualifying people that buy access to good public schools. My claim is that most of us on this thread that live WOTP are doing it. Not that we are displacing Latinos, but we are assuring our kids a good school by buying expensive homes that are IB for good schools. So, yes, we are buying access to schools that those with less means have a much lesser chance of accessing. And thanks to the OA lottery, there is a significant number of FARM Latino kids getting a better education.

But displacement is becoming an issue for native Spanish speaking kids who are also low income at Oyster. They are being displaced by people who can afford bilingual preschools; but they cannot afford To live IB for Oyster (in other words, the regular middle class). These people are taking a native speaker's seat, and the academic experience is worse as a result. I have personally seen the clear benefit of having children who come from Spanish speaking homes in my child's class. They raise the level and pace of the Spanish curriculum for all children. They bring their culture and experiences to the class. It is just a much better experience than having a classroom full of bilingual kids from English speaking homes.

Yes I can. I bought my house IB for Oyster without taking a seat from a native Spanish speaking child. My child (who was bilingual long before entering Oyster) entered via the English dominant lottery--because he is English dominant and a non-native speaker. I could have easily lied to get my son into Oyster for PK (and saved us about $20k), but he would have taken a NATIVE speaking child's seat. His current class has a majority of students with at least one native Spanish speaking parent, and it is a much better academic experience for him as a result.

I am 22:33. I am not arguing whether you took the seat of a native Spanish speaking child (which, FYI, mine is). I am challenging the assertion disqualifying people that buy access to good public schools. My claim is that most of us on this thread that live WOTP are doing it. Not that we are displacing Latinos, but we are assuring our kids a good school by buying expensive homes that are IB for good schools. So, yes, we are buying access to schools that those with less means have a much lesser chance of accessing. And thanks to the OA lottery, there is a significant number of FARM Latino kids getting a better education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3 is an example of a family buying their child admissions to a public school. It shouldn't be acceptable.


+1. I completely agree!

You can't live WOTP (like I do) and say that with a straight face. We all bought a tickets to good public schools with our more expensive homes.

Others spend money on tutors to prepare their children for entrance exams at schools like Walls.

Yes I can. I bought my house IB for Oyster without taking a seat from a native Spanish speaking child. My child (who was bilingual long before entering Oyster) entered via the English dominant lottery--because he is English dominant and a non-native speaker. I could have easily lied to get my son into Oyster for PK (and saved us about $20k), but he would have taken a NATIVE speaking child's seat. His current class has a majority of students with at least one native Spanish speaking parent, and it is a much better academic experience for him as a result.

And there it is. That's what is at the heart of the last five pages.

Anonymous wrote:

3 is an example of a family buying their child admissions to a public school. It shouldn't be acceptable.


+1. I completely agree!

You can't live WOTP (like I do) and say that with a straight face. We all bought a tickets to good public schools with our more expensive homes.

Others spend money on tutors to prepare their children for entrance exams at schools like Walls.

Yes I can. I bought my house IB for Oyster without taking a seat from a native Spanish speaking child. My child (who was bilingual long before entering Oyster) entered via the English dominant lottery--because he is English dominant and a non-native speaker. I could have easily lied to get my son into Oyster for PK (and saved us about $20k), but he would have taken a NATIVE speaking child's seat. His current class has a majority of students with at least one native Spanish speaking parent, and it is a much better academic experience for him as a result.

3 is an example of a family buying their child admissions to a public school. It shouldn't be acceptable.


+1. I completely agree!

You can't live WOTP (like I do) and say that with a straight face. We all bought a tickets to good public schools with our more expensive homes.

Others spend money on tutors to prepare their children for entrance exams at schools like Walls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lottery isn't meant to touch the "culture" issue. It's meant to keep the programs balanced between the number of kids who come in with Spanish and English. Period.

If we are going to attach significance to "culture," who is more culturally "Latino":

1). A white 7 year old who has spent half of their life living in a Spanish-speaking country, received all schooling in Spanish, and has all Latino friends, but has white parents who were raised in the U.S. And speak both English and Spanish, or

2). A 7 year old who has never visited a Spanish-speaking country, was born and raised in the U.S., who has Latino parents who were born and raised in the U.S. and speak both English and Spanish, or

3). A 7 year old who has vacationed in Spanish speaking countries, attended Spanish immersion preschool and early elementary at a bilingual school, been supported with native Spanish tutors, but has white parents.

I feel like this discussion overall ignores the modern world. In my view, all of the kids above are entitled to a spot if they can pass the test. It seems silly to suggest that only #2 qualifies.

3 is an example of a family buying their child admissions to a public school. It shouldn't be acceptable.

+1. I completely agree!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the school states you must be Latino in ethnicity or culture they would be shut down quickly. There are numerous two-way programs across the U.S. The criteria is native fluency, not an acceptable race or culture. I think people are well-meaning wanting to Latinos a leg up, but that is the essence of discrimination.

The official language from the lottery application was posted on the first page of this thread. It does not say anything about ethnicity. Rather than continuing this argument which led to me deleting multiple pages of posts last night, please let it go.

If I understand this dispute to which I have become an unwilling observer, there are basically two viewpoints:

1) The dominant language of a child is most often the language of the child's parents and the first language the child learns. In most cases, such children are from Latino families;

2) As a result some kids being bilingual from a very early age, "dominance" of a language is less important than "fluency" because the the child may be fluent in more than one language with neither being dominate. There are several methods of achieving fluency.

Those who have the first viewpoint are not buying the argument made by those with the second viewpoint. That dispute probably can't be resolved without input from the school. But, I would stress that neither of the viewpoints is based on race or ethnicity. While the first viewpoint suggests a strong correlation of ethnicity and language dominance, such correlation is not stated as a requirement.

Assuming I understand correctly, there is no need to further debate the racial and ethnicity issues, but rather get clarification from the school.

Thank you. Great summary.

To further illustrate why all this has little to do with race or ethnicity:

- the most clearly Spanish dominant kid in my kid's class is a French girl with 2 French parents. How come? Because they lived in Spain for several years right before coming over, and she speaks no English (she obviously speaks French)

- a good number of Latino kids speak/ pronounce Spanish not much better than the average Anglo. For better or worse, people in this country tend to assimilate by forgetting their ancestors' language, and bilingual education has been ignored if not outlawed in many states for decades...which is one more reason why we need schools like Oyster, and all the immersion public and charter schools

PP here -- and this probably goes without saying from the context, but we are Anglo. I speak some Spanish, but not to my son -- who gets very annoyed if I speak Spanish to him or my nanny speaks English to him. One person, one language.

I didn't apply to Oyster and won't, but truly, our son who from the age of 3 months spent about 50 percent of his waking hours with his nanny who spoke to him only in Spanish was Spanish-dominant until about the age of 3 -- when I started letting him watch English TV and he began to socialize more with kids his own age who spoke English better than Spanish (at bilingual preschool for a few days a week).

Even now, you at times can see that his Spanish grammar laid the roots for his English grammar: e.g., "I don't want nothing" or "those are mine's." We're trying to fix this in English, obviously.

Whether you like this or not -- and I can see a good argument that those Spanish-dominant Oyster seats should be reserved for poorer families not like ours -- if the test is simply Spanish dominance (or fluency), he would have passed.

Now, after almost a year in an English-speaking pre-K, he is not Spanish-dominant. Although his Spanish is excellent, it may not be fluent anymore. But my new rule is that if he wants to watch a half an hour of TV with the nanny, he can, but it has to be in Spanish. That actually helps a little - and she still speaks with him in Spanish after school and reads to him in Spanish.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the school states you must be Latino in ethnicity or culture they would be shut down quickly. There are numerous two-way programs across the U.S. The criteria is native fluency, not an acceptable race or culture. I think people are well-meaning wanting to Latinos a leg up, but that is the essence of discrimination.

The official language from the lottery application was posted on the first page of this thread. It does not say anything about ethnicity. Rather than continuing this argument which led to me deleting multiple pages of posts last night, please let it go.

If I understand this dispute to which I have become an unwilling observer, there are basically two viewpoints:

1) The dominant language of a child is most often the language of the child's parents and the first language the child learns. In most cases, such children are from Latino families;

2) As a result some kids being bilingual from a very early age, "dominance" of a language is less important than "fluency" because the the child may be fluent in more than one language with neither being dominate. There are several methods of achieving fluency.

Those who have the first viewpoint are not buying the argument made by those with the second viewpoint. That dispute probably can't be resolved without input from the school. But, I would stress that neither of the viewpoints is based on race or ethnicity. While the first viewpoint suggests a strong correlation of ethnicity and language dominance, such correlation is not stated as a requirement.

Assuming I understand correctly, there is no need to further debate the racial and ethnicity issues, but rather get clarification from the school.

Thank you Jeff! I share viewpoint #1, but I know that non-Latinos can be native Spanish speakers. Perhaps now we can have a more productive conversation on this thread.

Sorry Jeff, just saw your note on ethnicity. Didn't mean to drag it out.

Anonymous wrote:Another thought- Latinos born here in the U.S. Are native speakers of English. They speak as perfectly as any other American. I couldn't imagine saying now they're superior in Spanish, which subverts their native English ability. Yet, this discussion seems to pidgeon hole them. Trading one discriminatory view for another. This is why you can't do it.

Wow. Thanks for speaking for me and "them". What are you, the Latino Lorax?

OA families and teachers are pretty diverse by any measure. For some people it takes some getting used to. But on a day to day basis we don't sit around and play Guess the Language Dominance at drop off or Spot the Anglo at pickup.

Anonymous wrote:If the school states you must be Latino in ethnicity or culture they would be shut down quickly. There are numerous two-way programs across the U.S. The criteria is native fluency, not an acceptable race or culture. I think people are well-meaning wanting to Latinos a leg up, but that is the essence of discrimination.

The official language from the lottery application was posted on the first page of this thread. It does not say anything about ethnicity. Rather than continuing this argument which led to me deleting multiple pages of posts last night, please let it go.

If I understand this dispute to which I have become an unwilling observer, there are basically two viewpoints:

1) The dominant language of a child is most often the language of the child's parents and the first language the child learns. In most cases, such children are from Latino families;

2) As a result some kids being bilingual from a very early age, "dominance" of a language is less important than "fluency" because the the child may be fluent in more than one language with neither being dominate. There are several methods of achieving fluency.

Those who have the first viewpoint are not buying the argument made by those with the second viewpoint. That dispute probably can't be resolved without input from the school. But, I would stress that neither of the viewpoints is based on race or ethnicity. While the first viewpoint suggests a strong correlation of ethnicity and language dominance, such correlation is not stated as a requirement.

Assuming I understand correctly, there is no need to further debate the racial and ethnicity issues, but rather get clarification from the school.