Former Oyster parent here. We were/are IB Spanish dominant and got WL for Pre-K. We knew it was possible and made alternate arrangements for bilingual pre-K.

The bigger issue is that Oyster (still) isn't consistent in how it does things. It's not necessarily anyone's fault because it's kind of evolved that way over time. The school is a bit of a unicorn because it has high percentage of Hispanics and low percentage of poverty. Anglos have done all kinds of crazy things in the past to get in. So I understand the administration's frustration. But I've never heard a good explanation of why they don't use ELL screen for pre-K. Although that's not perfect either. One of our kids was ELL and the other was considered fluent by DCPS.

Personally, I think if any dual-immersion Spanish program wants to ensure dominance or primacy of Spanish in Pre-K, it should test parents/guardians for Spanish fluency in pre-K. Not ethnicity, nationality, or race, but Spanish fluency. Two parents/guardians that speak and read in Spanish can benefit the other parents or kids who struggle early with the language. That's the only way to determine a 3 year old's dominant language and not get into the nanny-speaks Spanish gray area IMHO.

OP, It's worth it to talk to Rosa Berrocal, not Mayra, in elementary. You don't have to complain, but you could ask her what to expect in K if your child spends a year in an English program. You could ask her thoughts on an appeal based on something like your child's social-emotional wellbeing. Say something like culturally it would help her transition to the US to be around other Latinx and international families - especially if you have no local family. Also emphasize if your spouse speaks or understands and is learning Spanish. You never know. Something could open up and you'd want Rosa in your corner. (We loved her.)

Whatever happens, this is definitely an introduction for how things work, or don't, in DC public education. Try to keep an open mind and a sense of humor. Your child has wonderful parents who care about her education. She can do well anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

The OP said that the principal assumed his daughter only spoke English...based on what?!? Why are you taking OP’s side without knowing what was ACTUALLY said during the conversation?

Btw, the principal doesn’t test the prospective students’ Spanish. That’s handled by Oyster teachers. We have no reason to believe that the Oyster teacher who tested the OP’s child was biased in anyway against his child.

Great, then someone should submit a FOIA request asking to see the instructions, training, documentation and directives given to the teachers conducting the test for how they should assess language dominance, which likely comes directly from the principal. Or do you actually believe each teacher is just asked to use their own judgement without any other guidance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are confused on one key point: a kid's primary caretaker is his/ her parents.

No Spanish-speaking nanny supercedes an English-speaking family, sorry.

No, you are being pedantic while failing to address the points raised. "Primary caretaker" was clearly defined as the person who spends the most time with the child. If you prefer different wording that's fine, but to pretend to not understand the argument is disingenuous. The child in that example speaks Spanish as their primary form of communication, regardless of how it was acquired.

Obviously the OP’s child doesn’t speak Spanish as her primary form of communication—or at least she didn’t on testing day.

That's not obvious; we know absolutely nothing about the test. All we know is that the OP was presumed to be not a native speaker, or the child was presumed to be English only by the principal.

No, the OP said that he believes the principal didn’t know he was a native speaker. That’s merely his opinion.

It’s OBVIOUS that the OP’s child did not demonstrate Spanish dominance because she FAILED the test—that’s not speculation. It’s a fact.

False: he said "I spoke to the principal Mayra Cruz. She had actually assumed my daughter only spoke English before the interview even took place." That isn't his opinion, it's what he learned from speaking to her.

Also, while she failed the test, we do not know 1) if the test was biased (based on assumption of English only, or anything else); 2) what even is the test; 3) if we should trust the test when clearly the child does speak fluent Spanish.

We are allowed to question the validity of the test, which we have no transparency about whatsoever.

The OP said that the principal assumed his daughter only spoke English...based on what?!? Why are you taking OP’s side without knowing what was ACTUALLY said during the conversation?

Btw, the principal doesn’t test the prospective students’ Spanish. That’s handled by Oyster teachers. We have no reason to believe that the Oyster teacher who tested the OP’s child was biased in anyway against his child.

+1

I agree with this poster. Sorry Diego!

If you look at the number of seats for PK4 at Oyster, there were at least 37 inbounds families or those with siblings enrolled who also didn't receive a match and were waitlisted. (The entire waitlist is 371 for PK4.)

Quite a few of DC classmates have siblings who attend Marie Reed, Centronia, Communikids, Rosemount as nearby Spanish options until they reach K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say that this is the least hate-filled Oyster thread I've come across in a long time. Thanks and keep it up, guys.

(Cue the Oyster Troll and the screaming librarian story...)

Lots of people are telling the OP is not a nurturing place. Not sure if that counts in your eyes?

I agree with that btw- not very warm and fuzzy.

I heard oof teachers yelling at students- the librarian yells too?

Hi Oyster Stalker! We’ve been expecting you.

???????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are confused on one key point: a kid's primary caretaker is his/ her parents.

No Spanish-speaking nanny supercedes an English-speaking family, sorry.

No, you are being pedantic while failing to address the points raised. "Primary caretaker" was clearly defined as the person who spends the most time with the child. If you prefer different wording that's fine, but to pretend to not understand the argument is disingenuous. The child in that example speaks Spanish as their primary form of communication, regardless of how it was acquired.

Obviously the OP’s child doesn’t speak Spanish as her primary form of communication—or at least she didn’t on testing day.

That's not obvious; we know absolutely nothing about the test. All we know is that the OP was presumed to be not a native speaker, or the child was presumed to be English only by the principal.

No, the OP said that he believes the principal didn’t know he was a native speaker. That’s merely his opinion.

It’s OBVIOUS that the OP’s child did not demonstrate Spanish dominance because she FAILED the test—that’s not speculation. It’s a fact.

False: he said "I spoke to the principal Mayra Cruz. She had actually assumed my daughter only spoke English before the interview even took place." That isn't his opinion, it's what he learned from speaking to her.

Also, while she failed the test, we do not know 1) if the test was biased (based on assumption of English only, or anything else); 2) what even is the test; 3) if we should trust the test when clearly the child does speak fluent Spanish.

We are allowed to question the validity of the test, which we have no transparency about whatsoever.

The OP said that the principal assumed his daughter only spoke English...based on what?!? Why are you taking OP’s side without knowing what was ACTUALLY said during the conversation?

Btw, the principal doesn’t test the prospective students’ Spanish. That’s handled by Oyster teachers. We have no reason to believe that the Oyster teacher who tested the OP’s child was biased in anyway against his child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are confused on one key point: a kid's primary caretaker is his/ her parents.

No Spanish-speaking nanny supercedes an English-speaking family, sorry.

No, you are being pedantic while failing to address the points raised. "Primary caretaker" was clearly defined as the person who spends the most time with the child. If you prefer different wording that's fine, but to pretend to not understand the argument is disingenuous. The child in that example speaks Spanish as their primary form of communication, regardless of how it was acquired.

Obviously the OP’s child doesn’t speak Spanish as her primary form of communication—or at least she didn’t on testing day.

That's not obvious; we know absolutely nothing about the test. All we know is that the OP was presumed to be not a native speaker, or the child was presumed to be English only by the principal.

No, the OP said that he believes the principal didn’t know he was a native speaker. That’s merely his opinion.

It’s OBVIOUS that the OP’s child did not demonstrate Spanish dominance because she FAILED the test—that’s not speculation. It’s a fact.

False: he said "I spoke to the principal Mayra Cruz. She had actually assumed my daughter only spoke English before the interview even took place." That isn't his opinion, it's what he learned from speaking to her.

Also, while she failed the test, we do not know 1) if the test was biased (based on assumption of English only, or anything else); 2) what even is the test; 3) if we should trust the test when clearly the child does speak fluent Spanish.

We are allowed to question the validity of the test, which we have no transparency about whatsoever.

OP didn't share who took the kid to the evaluation? While that shouldn't have played a role, if the child is happily chatting away in English with the caregiver while waiting, the school may well assume that the dominant language is English.

I think it would have been fair for the school to invite the child back for a retest, but in all likelihood has already given the seat to someone on the waitlist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are confused on one key point: a kid's primary caretaker is his/ her parents.

No Spanish-speaking nanny supercedes an English-speaking family, sorry.

No, you are being pedantic while failing to address the points raised. "Primary caretaker" was clearly defined as the person who spends the most time with the child. If you prefer different wording that's fine, but to pretend to not understand the argument is disingenuous. The child in that example speaks Spanish as their primary form of communication, regardless of how it was acquired.

Obviously the OP’s child doesn’t speak Spanish as her primary form of communication—or at least she didn’t on testing day.

That's not obvious; we know absolutely nothing about the test. All we know is that the OP was presumed to be not a native speaker, or the child was presumed to be English only by the principal.

No, the OP said that he believes the principal didn’t know he was a native speaker. That’s merely his opinion.

It’s OBVIOUS that the OP’s child did not demonstrate Spanish dominance because she FAILED the test—that’s not speculation. It’s a fact.

False: he said "I spoke to the principal Mayra Cruz. She had actually assumed my daughter only spoke English before the interview even took place." That isn't his opinion, it's what he learned from speaking to her.

Also, while she failed the test, we do not know 1) if the test was biased (based on assumption of English only, or anything else); 2) what even is the test; 3) if we should trust the test when clearly the child does speak fluent Spanish.

We are allowed to question the validity of the test, which we have no transparency about whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are confused on one key point: a kid's primary caretaker is his/ her parents.

No Spanish-speaking nanny supercedes an English-speaking family, sorry.

No, you are being pedantic while failing to address the points raised. "Primary caretaker" was clearly defined as the person who spends the most time with the child. If you prefer different wording that's fine, but to pretend to not understand the argument is disingenuous. The child in that example speaks Spanish as their primary form of communication, regardless of how it was acquired.

Obviously the OP’s child doesn’t speak Spanish as her primary form of communication—or at least she didn’t on testing day.

That's not obvious; we know absolutely nothing about the test. All we know is that the OP was presumed to be not a native speaker, or the child was presumed to be English only by the principal.

No, the OP said that he believes the principal didn’t know he was a native speaker. That’s merely his opinion.

It’s OBVIOUS that the OP’s child did not demonstrate Spanish dominance because she FAILED the test—that’s not speculation. It’s a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say that this is the least hate-filled Oyster thread I've come across in a long time. Thanks and keep it up, guys.

(Cue the Oyster Troll and the screaming librarian story...)

Lots of people are telling the OP is not a nurturing place. Not sure if that counts in your eyes?

I agree with that btw- not very warm and fuzzy.

I heard oof teachers yelling at students- the librarian yells too?

The "screaming librarian" story surfaces from time to time in Oyster threads. Some people believe that one person keeps telling that story and that the one person has it in for Oyster and makes unfair negative comments. I would not know the truth of that.

As for comments saying that Oyster is not nurturing - I would take that into account and wouldn't necessarily discount that as trolling. It depends on the tone and/or the specific evidence used to back up the opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a clear and consistent standard at Oyster, under the current principal: Spanish dominance, for purposes of lottery admission, must not be derived from nanny (aunt/grandma/play cousin) or preschool care. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the standard.

Btw, life is all about imposed value judgments, both official and implied.

The DC school enrollment handbook says otherwise and has done so for many years. So, if your statement is correct, the principal is applying a standard contrary to what parents are told to expect from the handbook. In addition, as others have pointed out, the standard comes very close to a national original test as well as being inconsistent across dual language schools. You haven't addressed any of these issues.

The quote below very clearly says that up until first grade they are testing for dominance, and that after first grade they are testing for proficiency. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

Can someone link me to this handout?

Link and relevant portion posted at 10:58

Here it is again:

Here is the DCPS policy on language skills for a child seeking a Spanish dominant seat at one of its schools. This applies to all of them, from Tyler to Oyster. https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/fil...Nov%202018%20%28English%29.pdf

"Language Dominance (PK3-1 Grades)
To support dual language learning in grades PK3-1, many schools strive to create linguistically balanced classrooms. As such, schools request that applicants identify as “English-dominant” or “Spanish-dominant ” on their lottery application. Language-dominance is defined as the primary language of communication for the applying student.

After the release of lottery results and prior to enrollment, schools may require students claiming Spanish dominant to be assessed for language proficiency. If the student does not pass the assessment, he or she may be required to forfeit their match in that school's dual language program. In these cases, the applicant will be placed on the school’s non-Spanish dominant waitlist.

Spanish Proficiency Screening (2-12 Grades)
In grades 2-12, students who attend dual language programs are expected to learn grade-level content in Spanish. If the applicant is not currently enrolled in a DCPS or DC public charter school dual language program, he or she will be required to take a Spanish-proficiency test. Testing occurs after lottery matches are released, at the school to which the student was matched. If the student does not pass the assessment, he or she may be required to forfeit their match in that school's dual language program. In these cases, at the parent’s request, the applicant will be placed back on the waitlist of all schools where the student was “not waitlisted.” This request must be made to My School DC by the parent and can only be made once the family has failed the proficiency test.

Note: If one school finds the student does not meet the language requirements, the student is ineligible for ALL DCPS dual language programs in that grade, if applicable."

I also wanted to add that OP says that it's normal for kids to mix up the two languages. As a former preschool teacher who has taught many bilingual preschoolers, and language learning preschoolers, I have to say that that has not been my experience at all. Kids learn very early on which language is which, and while a student who is still learning a language may revert back to his fluent language when the language they are learning runs out for them, or under stress, a kid who is truly bilingual usually has them completely straight before their 2nd birthday. The only exception I've seen is where one set of vocabulary is only learned in one language. So, a kid who speaks Spanish at home and English at school, might use a word like "perpendicular" when trying to explain a math concept in Spanish because they haven't heard those kinds of academic words in Spanish, or might refer to their aunt as "Tia" at school, because they aren't used to referring to her in English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say that this is the least hate-filled Oyster thread I've come across in a long time. Thanks and keep it up, guys.

(Cue the Oyster Troll and the screaming librarian story...)

Lots of people are telling the OP is not a nurturing place. Not sure if that counts in your eyes?

I agree with that btw- not very warm and fuzzy.

I heard oof teachers yelling at students- the librarian yells too?

Hi Oyster Stalker! We’ve been expecting you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a clear and consistent standard at Oyster, under the current principal: Spanish dominance, for purposes of lottery admission, must not be derived from nanny (aunt/grandma/play cousin) or preschool care. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the standard.

Btw, life is all about imposed value judgments, both official and implied.

The DC school enrollment handbook says otherwise and has done so for many years. So, if your statement is correct, the principal is applying a standard contrary to what parents are told to expect from the handbook. In addition, as others have pointed out, the standard comes very close to a national original test as well as being inconsistent across dual language schools. You haven't addressed any of these issues.

The quote below very clearly says that up until first grade they are testing for dominance, and that after first grade they are testing for proficiency. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

Can someone link me to this handout?

Link and relevant portion posted at 10:58

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a clear and consistent standard at Oyster, under the current principal: Spanish dominance, for purposes of lottery admission, must not be derived from nanny (aunt/grandma/play cousin) or preschool care. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the standard.

Btw, life is all about imposed value judgments, both official and implied.

The DC school enrollment handbook says otherwise and has done so for many years. So, if your statement is correct, the principal is applying a standard contrary to what parents are told to expect from the handbook. In addition, as others have pointed out, the standard comes very close to a national original test as well as being inconsistent across dual language schools. You haven't addressed any of these issues.

The quote below very clearly says that up until first grade they are testing for dominance, and that after first grade they are testing for proficiency. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

Can someone link me to this handout?

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say that this is the least hate-filled Oyster thread I've come across in a long time. Thanks and keep it up, guys.

(Cue the Oyster Troll and the screaming librarian story...)

Lots of people are telling the OP is not a nurturing place. Not sure if that counts in your eyes?

I agree with that btw- not very warm and fuzzy.

I heard oof teachers yelling at students- the librarian yells too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a clear and consistent standard at Oyster, under the current principal: Spanish dominance, for purposes of lottery admission, must not be derived from nanny (aunt/grandma/play cousin) or preschool care. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the standard.

Btw, life is all about imposed value judgments, both official and implied.

The DC school enrollment handbook says otherwise and has done so for many years. So, if your statement is correct, the principal is applying a standard contrary to what parents are told to expect from the handbook. In addition, as others have pointed out, the standard comes very close to a national original test as well as being inconsistent across dual language schools. You haven't addressed any of these issues.

The quote below very clearly says that up until first grade they are testing for dominance, and that after first grade they are testing for proficiency. Can you provide a link that says otherwise?