Yu Ying - Do/Can Non-Native Kids Actually SPEAK Chinese?

[Anonymous]

I simply don't see what the problem is with second language exposure from a young age, whether partial or full. I'm sorry but I'm just not worried about English language acquisition or success. I don't buy the Canadian academic's lecture above (and why is that person even on this board? snooping about the net much?). Exposure to a second language, whether fully acquired, practiced at home, or not, cannot be a problem unless perhaps the child has certain special needs. What I would give to have had that exposure before, say, high school. That child is not only learning language, they are learning multiculturalism and this is worth it. If the child is not writing and reading up to par by say, middle school, that's when to hire an English tutor. Not to fret about the value of immersion schools at a young age. This is a huge privilege of access to DC charters and it's no wonder the immersion schools have waitlists miles long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Chinese national, a graduate student in DC with a young family, who is not out of touch.

I have been tutoring 2 YY students (siblings), for the past 2 years on a weekly basis when school is in session. The money is good and I am grateful for the work. Their parents tell me that they are among the best Mandarin speakers in their classes.

I volunteered at YY at an event last month, where I spoke to dozens of kids in Mandarin (my 3rd dialect, but the one I have used in my studies since age 5). Sorry, but the YY students' Chinese is really basic. They do not seem able to say things they have not been specifically trained to say by teachers. The odd kid speaks a little better than the others, but no student I've spoken to is anywhere near fluent. Some of the kids have good tones, many do not.

We rent a small apartment IB for a good DCPS to avoid charter schools.

You poor foreigner, you're not with the program as we say here in America.

You see, YY kids don't need to speak good Chinese yet because they're going to GROW UP TO LIVE AND WORK IN CHINA, where they will become fluent, just like your own children. At least one parent informs us that this is the family plan on every YY thread so it must be true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I simply don't see what the problem is with second language exposure from a young age, whether partial or full. I'm sorry but I'm just not worried about English language acquisition or success. I don't buy the Canadian academic's lecture above (and why is that person even on this board? snooping about the net much?). Exposure to a second language, whether fully acquired, practiced at home, or not, cannot be a problem unless perhaps the child has certain special needs. What I would give to have had that exposure before, say, high school. That child is not only learning language, they are learning multiculturalism and this is worth it. If the child is not writing and reading up to par by say, middle school, that's when to hire an English tutor. Not to fret about the value of immersion schools at a young age. This is a huge privilege of access to DC charters and it's no wonder the immersion schools have waitlists miles long.

I'm with you, and the whole Trump Administration. To heck with evidence-based decisions. Honestly, don't fret about anything that's been researched, proven or published. I make a point of hiring multiculturalism majors before others myself, at the Taiwanese-run tech firm where I work. But wait, you don't have a kid enrolled in a DC charter immersion program whose target language you don't speak? Come now, where's your skin in the game? Where's your street cred?

Mile-long waitlists have a little something to do with neighborhood schools with proficiency pass rates in the teens, twenties, and, if you're lucky, thirties or forties, along with 7-figure prices for 3 and 4-bedroom renovated houses in the JKLM and Brent zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I simply don't see what the problem is with second language exposure from a young age, whether partial or full. I'm sorry but I'm just not worried about English language acquisition or success. I don't buy the Canadian academic's lecture above (and why is that person even on this board? snooping about the net much?). Exposure to a second language, whether fully acquired, practiced at home, or not, cannot be a problem unless perhaps the child has certain special needs. What I would give to have had that exposure before, say, high school. That child is not only learning language, they are learning multiculturalism and this is worth it. If the child is not writing and reading up to par by say, middle school, that's when to hire an English tutor. Not to fret about the value of immersion schools at a young age. This is a huge privilege of access to DC charters and it's no wonder the immersion schools have waitlists miles long.

I'm with you, and the whole Trump Administration. To heck with evidence-based decisions. Honestly, don't fret about anything that's been researched, proven or published. I make a point of hiring multiculturalism majors before others myself, at the Taiwanese-run tech firm where I work. But wait, you don't have a kid enrolled in a DC charter immersion program whose target language you don't speak? Come now, where's your skin in the game? Where's your street cred?

Mile-long waitlists have a little something to do with neighborhood schools with proficiency pass rates in the teens, twenties, and, if you're lucky, thirties or forties, along with 7-figure prices for 3 and 4-bedroom renovated houses in the JKLM and Brent zones.

There is plenty of data on the benefits of second languages for children. I'm sorry it doesn't fit whatever narrative you're pushing. The canadian takeaway was that there might be a cost in terms of native language proficiency (on university admission exams, maybe? can't remember). There isn't convincing evidence that there is active "harm" being done by these programs and there certainly are other benefits. This is one of the results of our school choice culture, right? JKLM parent made one choice; there are native Chinese speakers who have kids at YY and live in JKLM/Brent who have made a different choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It comes up because a lot of parents wonder what the point of doing it is l, if a.) you’re risking your kid not understanding the fundamentals really well because they’re being taught in a foreign language and b.) the odds are that your child will never become fluent anyway.

Yes, this is my basic concern. A couple years later, the ephemeral language gains are mostly lost, and the sum total of it might just be lost time on core subjects. I know there could be a lot of huffing about boiling it down to this but... if you're a teenager without Chinese speaking context, little language ability anyway, and a need to spend your time on your subjects or grades....could you really say it was worth it?

It's unclear enough to me to say, "Nah."

I have no knowledge of YY, but based on my own experience of being enrolled in Spainish classes from age 4 - 17 (NOT immersion, just an hour every other day or so), I can't believe this is true. I've gone on to learn other languages, and haven't studied Spanish in two decades. Yet when I sat down recently to take a placement exam in Spanish just for kicks, I scored high intermediate -- a level it took me fifteen years of active study to reach in my more recent studies of another language! This shows that a) I'm not exactly gifted at language acquisition, haha, and 2) those formative years of exposure to Spanish have left a lasting mark.

This is not to say that Spanish is equivalent to Chinese in terms of learning difficulty; obviously, Chinese is much, much more challenging. But it should encourage people who spent time and resources exposing their young kids to another language: not everything is lost after "a few years."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I simply don't see what the problem is with second language exposure from a young age, whether partial or full. I'm sorry but I'm just not worried about English language acquisition or success. I don't buy the Canadian academic's lecture above (and why is that person even on this board? snooping about the net much?). Exposure to a second language, whether fully acquired, practiced at home, or not, cannot be a problem unless perhaps the child has certain special needs. What I would give to have had that exposure before, say, high school. That child is not only learning language, they are learning multiculturalism and this is worth it. If the child is not writing and reading up to par by say, middle school, that's when to hire an English tutor. Not to fret about the value of immersion schools at a young age. This is a huge privilege of access to DC charters and it's no wonder the immersion schools have waitlists miles long.

I'm with you, and the whole Trump Administration. To heck with evidence-based decisions. Honestly, don't fret about anything that's been researched, proven or published. I make a point of hiring multiculturalism majors before others myself, at the Taiwanese-run tech firm where I work. But wait, you don't have a kid enrolled in a DC charter immersion program whose target language you don't speak? Come now, where's your skin in the game? Where's your street cred?

Mile-long waitlists have a little something to do with neighborhood schools with proficiency pass rates in the teens, twenties, and, if you're lucky, thirties or forties, along with 7-figure prices for 3 and 4-bedroom renovated houses in the JKLM and Brent zones.

There is plenty of data on the benefits of second languages for children. I'm sorry it doesn't fit whatever narrative you're pushing. The canadian takeaway was that there might be a cost in terms of native language proficiency (on university admission exams, maybe? can't remember). There isn't convincing evidence that there is active "harm" being done by these programs and there certainly are other benefits. This is one of the results of our school choice culture, right? JKLM parent made one choice; there are native Chinese speakers who have kids at YY and live in JKLM/Brent who have made a different choice.

My narrative is high-performing immersion language programs in this city, as in my native California. Former YY parent (we left four years ago, but keep up with most of the native speakers we got to know there). There are actually very few native Chinese speakers in the YY community (ABCs or Asian nationals who grew up speaking Chinese fluently). By my count, there are no more than a dozen at any given time, and only around half speak their dialect to their children and require them to answer in Chinese. There are more Chinese native speakers at our DCPS, along with more kids who speak good Chinese at home.

YY mainly attracts parents from outside the Deal/Wilson District who sign up to get on a path to 12th grade at DCI, rather than for the Chinese. I understand their choice of YY and DCI in face of lousy DCPS options, but when PPs come to DCUM to defend the honor of the school claiming that most of the families take the immersion seriously, some of us challenge. YY could actually do a lot to improve outputs for spoken Chinese. For example, the school could threaten to bump all the kids who can't speak to a reasonably high standard off their immersion track and onto their non-immersion track, while offering strong speaking support to stragglers to raise standards, BASIS end-of-year comprehensive exams style. They could also offer summer immersion camp and full immersion after care to raise standards for speaking.

When you enroll your kid in a public immersion Chinese program supported by your tax dollars only to discover that your 5 year-old speaks better Chinese than most of the 4th and 5th graders, something's wrong.

[Anonymous]

At YY, kids only get bumped off the immersion Chinese track for weakness in English and/or math, not for weakness in Chinese (speaking, understanding, reading, writing).

Anything goes for Chinese as long as the kids are working close to grade level, or above, in ELA and math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I simply don't see what the problem is with second language exposure from a young age, whether partial or full. I'm sorry but I'm just not worried about English language acquisition or success. I don't buy the Canadian academic's lecture above (and why is that person even on this board? snooping about the net much?). Exposure to a second language, whether fully acquired, practiced at home, or not, cannot be a problem unless perhaps the child has certain special needs. What I would give to have had that exposure before, say, high school. That child is not only learning language, they are learning multiculturalism and this is worth it. If the child is not writing and reading up to par by say, middle school, that's when to hire an English tutor. Not to fret about the value of immersion schools at a young age. This is a huge privilege of access to DC charters and it's no wonder the immersion schools have waitlists miles long.

I'm with you, and the whole Trump Administration. To heck with evidence-based decisions. Honestly, don't fret about anything that's been researched, proven or published. I make a point of hiring multiculturalism majors before others myself, at the Taiwanese-run tech firm where I work. But wait, you don't have a kid enrolled in a DC charter immersion program whose target language you don't speak? Come now, where's your skin in the game? Where's your street cred?

Mile-long waitlists have a little something to do with neighborhood schools with proficiency pass rates in the teens, twenties, and, if you're lucky, thirties or forties, along with 7-figure prices for 3 and 4-bedroom renovated houses in the JKLM and Brent zones.

There is plenty of data on the benefits of second languages for children. I'm sorry it doesn't fit whatever narrative you're pushing. The canadian takeaway was that there might be a cost in terms of native language proficiency (on university admission exams, maybe? can't remember). There isn't convincing evidence that there is active "harm" being done by these programs and there certainly are other benefits. This is one of the results of our school choice culture, right? JKLM parent made one choice; there are native Chinese speakers who have kids at YY and live in JKLM/Brent who have made a different choice.

My narrative is high-performing immersion language programs in this city, as in my native California. Former YY parent (we left four years ago, but keep up with most of the native speakers we got to know there). There are actually very few native Chinese speakers in the YY community (ABCs or Asian nationals who grew up speaking Chinese fluently). By my count, there are no more than a dozen at any given time, and only around half speak their dialect to their children and require them to answer in Chinese. There are more Chinese native speakers at our DCPS, along with more kids who speak good Chinese at home.

YY mainly attracts parents from outside the Deal/Wilson District who sign up to get on a path to 12th grade at DCI, rather than for the Chinese. I understand their choice of YY and DCI in face of lousy DCPS options, but when PPs come to DCUM to defend the honor of the school claiming that most of the families take the immersion seriously, some of us challenge. YY could actually do a lot to improve outputs for spoken Chinese. For example, the school could threaten to bump all the kids who can't speak to a reasonably high standard off their immersion track and onto their non-immersion track, while offering strong speaking support to stragglers to raise standards, BASIS end-of-year comprehensive exams style. They could also offer summer immersion camp and full immersion after care to raise standards for speaking.

When you enroll your kid in a public immersion Chinese program supported by your tax dollars only to discover that your 5 year-old speaks better Chinese than most of the 4th and 5th graders, something's wrong.

So you left four years ago, and yet claim to know how many native speakers are at YY. Further, you claim to know what is spoken at home, and what is required of kids when spoken to in Chinese? How could you possibly be so certain about this, unless you surveyed all families every year?

Look, I think you actually have some good points about things they could do better, such as offering additional support to stragglers, summer immersion camp, etc. I have a child at a private immersion for another language that does these things; however, I'm not sure whether these same options are realistic for a charter school. However, your repeated disparaging of a school you left basically ages ago seems odd. Also, CA is a whole different animal than DC, so I don't think it makes you an expert on what will work in a completely different context with different demographics (I lived there too until fairly recently).

I have no connection to YY, other than knowing several families with kids who attend in my Deal/Wilson feeder neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

So you're not a Chinese-speaking DC parent with kids in public school, so you're probably not aware that the community of ABCs raising bilingual children is small; we tend to keep up, and hang out at the same dim sum places and weekend language programs. We hear about developments at YY from the few native speakers who've stayed, and know all about the politics of education in Cal vs. DC. We know that YY admins do want to ratchet up the speaking component of the program, and that their solution has been to add PreS3 entirely in Chinese (3 years ago). But adding preschool in Mandarin won't change anything as long as upper grades students don't need to meet standards for speaking Chinese. An older kid can hardly speak without the family ever coming under any pressure to exit the immersion track. YY could have offered a serious Chinese program. It hasn't. Maybe things don't change in DCPC, but I haven't given up on YY and DCI emerging as good options for native speaking kids one day. Now and again, I attend charter roundtables on improving immersion schools.

[Anonymous]

Serious question here: what can and should non-native speaking YY parents be doing to increase their child's fluency given the limitations of YY? The school provides suggested resources, but I'm curious what this crowd says. I've heard mention of families hiring Chinese tutors and au pairs, but what else could be done? Would a non-native family be welcomed in a weekend language program? And is that best place to start?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always seem to treat fluency in a foreign language like some mysterious, all-or-nothing proposition that is not worth undertaking if it is not done perfectly from the get-go - with very little understanding of how speaking more than one language actually functions, or how many different ways there are to be proficient in a language.

As far as i'm concerned, giving kids exposure and the building blocks to learn other languages early on is a good thing; it's been proven to be a good thing; and bilingual education does that. Some kids are going to attain higher levels of fluency than others, because some people are simply better at languages than others. Good luck controlling that.

Because, come on, the vast majority of us have taken YEARS of foreign language study through school and still never became fluent in it and never use it now.

I started Spanish in middle school and took it every year through college. I did a study abroad semester in Peru. My Spanish did become conversational at one point but then I stopped using it in my every day life and now, over a decade later, it's mostly lost. I could use it to get around on a trip but nothing more than that.

If you don't use it at home or at work in your every day life, what is the point? It was wasted effort. It came to nothing.

This is what parents are wondering about YY when they don't speak Chinese themselves and so can't support it at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always seem to treat fluency in a foreign language like some mysterious, all-or-nothing proposition that is not worth undertaking if it is not done perfectly from the get-go - with very little understanding of how speaking more than one language actually functions, or how many different ways there are to be proficient in a language.

As far as i'm concerned, giving kids exposure and the building blocks to learn other languages early on is a good thing; it's been proven to be a good thing; and bilingual education does that. Some kids are going to attain higher levels of fluency than others, because some people are simply better at languages than others. Good luck controlling that.

Because, come on, the vast majority of us have taken YEARS of foreign language study through school and still never became fluent in it and never use it now.

I started Spanish in middle school and took it every year through college. I did a study abroad semester in Peru. My Spanish did become conversational at one point but then I stopped using it in my every day life and now, over a decade later, it's mostly lost. I could use it to get around on a trip but nothing more than that.

If you don't use it at home or at work in your every day life, what is the point? It was wasted effort. It came to nothing.

This is what parents are wondering about YY when they don't speak Chinese themselves and so can't support it at home.

Because you don't know at age 8 what you are going to do or be. By your reasoning, kids who aren't going to be recruited for college soccer shouldn't bother with travel, a chunky preschooler should never take ballet, and art class is a complete waste of time if you don't have any talent.

I'm sorry you regret studying Spanish, of all things, but your experience is not universal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always seem to treat fluency in a foreign language like some mysterious, all-or-nothing proposition that is not worth undertaking if it is not done perfectly from the get-go - with very little understanding of how speaking more than one language actually functions, or how many different ways there are to be proficient in a language.

As far as i'm concerned, giving kids exposure and the building blocks to learn other languages early on is a good thing; it's been proven to be a good thing; and bilingual education does that. Some kids are going to attain higher levels of fluency than others, because some people are simply better at languages than others. Good luck controlling that.

Sounds peachy PP, but the inconvenient truth is that YY kids are only getting around 50% as much instruction in English as peers who aren't in immersion programs while learning a language that at least 95% of the families can't reinforce at home, and the minority of the kids are unlikely to use as teens let alone adults. The building blocks come at too high a price, much too high. All or nothing propositions are not the issue.

Fluency is a misnomer in this context. The great majority of upper grades YY kids speak Chinese minimally - there is no level of fluency involved. That's why we bailed on the school. You get slammed on these threads for calling a spade a spade when the dismal results are painfully obvious to any native speaker of any dialect of Chinese. Most YY parents may love the arrangement, but it seems ludicrous to this parent whose kids do speak Chinese fluently, and score 5s on the PARCC ELA every year they take it at our DCPS. We avoid conversations about Chinese instruction with YY families to minimize the risk of offense. Call me and other posters who point out obvious truths "haters" if it makes you feel better. Problem is, we're right (as YY Chinese teachers know) and, to my knowledge, there's no fix on the horizon.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always seem to treat fluency in a foreign language like some mysterious, all-or-nothing proposition that is not worth undertaking if it is not done perfectly from the get-go - with very little understanding of how speaking more than one language actually functions, or how many different ways there are to be proficient in a language.

As far as i'm concerned, giving kids exposure and the building blocks to learn other languages early on is a good thing; it's been proven to be a good thing; and bilingual education does that. Some kids are going to attain higher levels of fluency than others, because some people are simply better at languages than others. Good luck controlling that.

Because, come on, the vast majority of us have taken YEARS of foreign language study through school and still never became fluent in it and never use it now.

I started Spanish in middle school and took it every year through college. I did a study abroad semester in Peru. My Spanish did become conversational at one point but then I stopped using it in my every day life and now, over a decade later, it's mostly lost. I could use it to get around on a trip but nothing more than that.

If you don't use it at home or at work in your every day life, what is the point? It was wasted effort. It came to nothing.

This is what parents are wondering about YY when they don't speak Chinese themselves and so can't support it at home.

Because you don't know at age 8 what you are going to do or be. By your reasoning, kids who aren't going to be recruited for college soccer shouldn't bother with travel, a chunky preschooler should never take ballet, and art class is a complete waste of time if you don't have any talent.

I'm sorry you regret studying Spanish, of all things, but your experience is not universal.

It's closer to universal than not. Most Americans are monolingual. They're monolingual because they can be, because the rest of the world speaks English. Go anywhere in the world today, even the most rural areas, and you will find people with some degree of English proficiency. With that being the reality of the situation, I don't see what advantage it gives my kid to risk his math education (which I do believe you need to be competitive in this world) for the possible benefit of learning a language we can't support at home and which he will most likely never become fluent in anyway.

The point is, if it's not being reinforced outside of school, it's useless.

[Anonymous]

+1,000. DC tries to substitute immersion in random languages with (with little ethnic community buy-in involved) for strong neighborhood schools at it's BS folks.