Sp or Ch language?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is hard when YY doesn't try hard. Where’s the outreach? My family frequents venues popular with area E. Asians (certain supermarkets, dim sum places, cultural centers, heritage language schools), as well as reads Chinese newspapers and watches ethnic TV geared to local consumption. YY has little or no presence where the Chinese are. And, yes, having a black principal who doesn’t speak Chinese well certainly doesn't help. Argue that we know "nil" about the school, fine, but we know our culture well enough to get that the make-up of the administration transmits a clear message "school unwilling to meet Chinese community halfway.” The arrangement wouldn’t be objectionable if public monies weren’t behind charters. We aren't involved enough to "hate" YY.

Wait, you think that the use of public funds mandates the use of racial prejudice when making hiring decisions?

(In case you really believe this: it doesn't. In fact, the opposite is true.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a YY parent, I would have to say the school is NOT rigorous. The instruction in Chinese is challenging for many children. The instruction in English is sub-par and of concern.

I also agree completely with the ABC former YY parent who is posting here.

YY is Chinese for white people. Period. Unless there is a significant change in admin, I don't see the school improving much in the near future.

Needless to say, we're on our way out. YY is a nice idea and there are a lot of parents in serious denial about the school culture and rigor who post early and often on DCUM. It doesn't change the reality of the school though.

I guess we can all wait for the DCCAS scores this year to be the judge. They should be better this year since nearly all the parents who can afford it are paying for tutors (in both English and Chinese) to make up for YY's substandard instruction.

As the ABC poster who withdrew my kid, I appreciate this post. YY IS Chinese for white people,and black people, to the extent that it loses the forest for the trees on some levels, although the kids' Mandarin isn't bad. We weren't too happy with the instruction in English either, although the aftercare program was great. Back in our WOP school, challenge has returned.

What YY has done is to attract just enough ethnic Chinese, and other parents with a strong connection to China, to embolden it to claim that it serves the bilingual community well, when it doesn't. What you get are the school's movers and shakers, almost all white and black, telling the Chinese about their culture (no prejudice!) and the advantages of learning their language. While there are Chinese who don't mind--they focus on the language learning and leave it at that--most do and stay away, or leave. After pulling out, Chinese friends joked that we'd last longer than they expected.

Is this truly how the PA wants YY to work? There is no value in taking a culture for what it is, vs. presenting a DC Charter concocted ideal? I found the Chinese teachers tend to be painfully polite and deferential to admin, not wanting to offend their foreign hosts, or jeopardize their visa status and hard currency salaries. Without many Chinese adults with US citizenship, or permanent residency, on hand, who calls YY out on some of its most egregious cultural failings? Who provides insight that, while not PC, is at least grounded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a YY parent, I would have to say the school is NOT rigorous. The instruction in Chinese is challenging for many children. The instruction in English is sub-par and of concern.

I also agree completely with the ABC former YY parent who is posting here.

YY is Chinese for white people. Period. Unless there is a significant change in admin, I don't see the school improving much in the near future.

Needless to say, we're on our way out. YY is a nice idea and there are a lot of parents in serious denial about the school culture and rigor who post early and often on DCUM. It doesn't change the reality of the school though.

I guess we can all wait for the DCCAS scores this year to be the judge. They should be better this year since nearly all the parents who can afford it are paying for tutors (in both English and Chinese) to make up for YY's substandard instruction.

As the ABC poster who withdrew my kid, I appreciate this post. YY IS Chinese for white people,and black people, to the extent that it loses the forest for the trees on some levels, although the kids' Mandarin isn't bad. We weren't too happy with the instruction in English either, although the aftercare program was great. Back in our WOP school, challenge has returned.

What YY has done is to attract just enough ethnic Chinese, and other parents with a strong connection to China, to embolden it to claim that it serves the bilingual community well, when it doesn't. What you get are the school's movers and shakers, almost all white and black, telling the Chinese about their culture (no prejudice!) and the advantages of learning their language. While there are Chinese who don't mind--they focus on the language learning and leave it at that--most do and stay away, or leave. After pulling out, Chinese friends joked that we'd last longer than they expected.

Is this truly how the PA wants YY to work? There is no value in taking a culture for what it is, vs. presenting a DC Charter concocted ideal? I found the Chinese teachers tend to be painfully polite and deferential to admin, not wanting to offend their foreign hosts, or jeopardize their visa status and hard currency salaries. Without many Chinese adults with US citizenship, or permanent residency, on hand, who calls YY out on some of its most egregious cultural failings? Who provides insight that, while not PC, is at least grounded?

I'm the parent of a rising K student and this is the first time I've heard of this. It would never occur to me to question how well YY "serves the bilingual community" nor frankly, do I care. All I know is that my DC is speaking and reading Mandarin whereas before he entered school last fall, he knew no Mandarin at all. Pretty damn amazing. I think they did a great job and DC will be returning for K.

[Anonymous]

Another rising K parent here who never thought of YY serving the bilingual community. I don't believe any charter's claims of what community it serves, since in fact the more popular ones serve only those families who get lucky in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Seriously, I doubt allowing a few bilingual kids into YY when they are 4, 5, 6, etc. will make a lot of difference to the language acquisition of their peers not to mention the added logistical issue of testing to see how proficient they are in "Mandarin" they have to be to get such preference.

So why just allow a few, why not have YY knock itself out to find, and keep, as many as it can below a 50% threshold of the student population, like Cleveland, Tyler SI, Oyster, MV and DC Bilingual? Couldn't the logisitcal issue of testing Mandarin-speaking kids be overcome with a little political will. Chinese-immersion schools elsewhere in the US (MN, MA, CA, UT) do it.

We know a (black) family who asked about switching from a MoCo ES immersion school to YY for 3rd grade. They were told no, of course, although their concern about YY's Mandarin was that it wouldn't be challenging enough for kids used to speaking Chinese to many ethnic classmates and their parents.

At some point, doesn't common sense have to intervene with these policies? Actively keeping a fully bilingual child out of the higher grades sounds like a poor way to serve the school, and something small the PA could change if it wanted. Has it tried?

[Anonymous]

It is not a small feat to change the enabling legislation for the charter school system.

YY's situation is that random admission to the upper grades, would require admission of kids who had no Mandarin, if they were at the top of the lottery.

Other charter schools would also like to use a screening tool -- academically difficult schools would probably like to use a screen like DC-CAS score (e.g., BASIS, although I don't know this, just guessing). The Hebrew school would like to use a screen for Hebrew (think of it, only 13 yo who had completed their bah/bat mitzvah could possibly pass).

Changing the charter law requires a full DC Council vote, a lot of political capital, and not a path I think YY should go down.

For grades where admission still occurs, because YY uses a wait list in order of application submission, YY could do a huge outreach effort, in Chinese, about this admission policy. Only those who would read Chinese would receive the outreach. YY could set up a table in Chinatown to receive applications on the first day. YY could actively keep Chinese speaking parents informed of how quickly the wait list is moving. So, using the wait list order, for 2nd grade and under, the Chinese speaking population could be increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm seriously suggesting that the YY principal is incompetent and the board appointed her without a interviewing multiple candidates. I'm seriously suggesting that YY is an insular community where the board, administrators, and increasingly the faculty have students at the school. As a group, their opinion is that the school is great, there is no opening to criticism of any kind. There is little responsiveness to ongoing social problems (that overused word bullying). Everyone in the building either is the parent of a child in the building or is very young, having all of their professional experience at YY.

How in the world could that possibly be a bad thing?

It precludes anyone who has experience at another Chinese bilingual school from getting a job at YY. Or experience at another school period. It promotes an insular and self-serving administration. Very narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I doubt allowing a few bilingual kids into YY when they are 4, 5, 6, etc. will make a lot of difference to the language acquisition of their peers not to mention the added logistical issue of testing to see how proficient they are in "Mandarin" they have to be to get such preference.

So why just allow a few, why not have YY knock itself out to find, and keep, as many as it can below a 50% threshold of the student population, like Cleveland, Tyler SI, Oyster, MV and DC Bilingual? Couldn't the logisitcal issue of testing Mandarin-speaking kids be overcome with a little political will. Chinese-immersion schools elsewhere in the US (MN, MA, CA, UT) do it.

We know a (black) family who asked about switching from a MoCo ES immersion school to YY for 3rd grade. They were told no, of course, although their concern about YY's Mandarin was that it wouldn't be challenging enough for kids used to speaking Chinese to many ethnic classmates and their parents.

At some point, doesn't common sense have to intervene with these policies? Actively keeping a fully bilingual child out of the higher grades sounds like a poor way to serve the school, and something small the PA could change if it wanted. Has it tried?

It's nothing small at all. The lack of admission tests is part of the charter law, and it won't change in the next 25 years for two reasons:

* allowing an admission test at charters and not at public schools would reinforce the perception that (some) charters are actually exclusive clubs operating on the taxpayer dime. (Read any of the BASIS threads for examples of this fight.)
* DC's political class is terrified of setting children apart and calling them smarter than other kids. That's why there are no programs for gifted kids, and why the only admission-based schools are high schools.



As an aside, several posters have invoked the PA as a group that should be changing things. YY is run by its board and administrators appointed by the board. The PA exists to support the school, which has sometimes included individual parents doing pro bono legal work regarding amendments to the school's charter, but the PA has no legal standing to change anything at the Charter Board (or any other) level.

[Anonymous]

+1....The impression I'm getting, from the outside, is that being indifferent to chinese cultural norms/abc sensitivities, and fairly militant about it, is the norm for parents at this inbred charter.

So people are mainly interested in fleeing unacceptable IB schools, believing that bilingualism will make their kids smarter, and ultimately more marketable in a increasingly globalized labor force?

After wading through this thread, can't help but marvel that chinese parents are involved. The arrangement sounds awkward as heck, no matter how good the kids' Mandarin might be. YY, hire a savvy PR team cheap after the Dems or Republicans lose in Nov!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1....The impression I'm getting, from the outside, is that being indifferent to chinese cultural norms/abc sensitivities, and fairly militant about it, is the norm for parents at this inbred charter.

So people are mainly interested in fleeing unacceptable IB schools, believing that bilingualism will make their kids smarter, and ultimately more marketable in a increasingly globalized labor force?

After wading through this thread, can't help but marvel that chinese parents are involved. The arrangement sounds awkward as heck, no matter how good the kids' Mandarin might be. YY, hire a savvy PR team cheap after the Dems or Republicans lose in Nov!

True (and I'm a YY parent who's very happy with the school as is - my child is a rising K, no complaints) except maybe the last paragraph about needing a savvy PR team. Waitlist is long and growing longer every year... probably will be like 2Rivers and Stokes where only siblings will get placement soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Seriously, I doubt allowing a few bilingual kids into YY when they are 4, 5, 6, etc. will make a lot of difference to the language acquisition of their peers not to mention the added logistical issue of testing to see how proficient they are in "Mandarin" they have to be to get such preference.

So why just allow a few, why not have YY knock itself out to find, and keep, as many as it can below a 50% threshold of the student population, like Cleveland, Tyler SI, Oyster, MV and DC Bilingual? Couldn't the logisitcal issue of testing Mandarin-speaking kids be overcome with a little political will. Chinese-immersion schools elsewhere in the US (MN, MA, CA, UT) do it.

We know a (black) family who asked about switching from a MoCo ES immersion school to YY for 3rd grade. They were told no, of course, although their concern about YY's Mandarin was that it wouldn't be challenging enough for kids used to speaking Chinese to many ethnic classmates and their parents.

At some point, doesn't common sense have to intervene with these policies? Actively keeping a fully bilingual child out of the higher grades sounds like a poor way to serve the school, and something small the PA could change if it wanted. Has it tried?

We applied to YY, MV, LAMB, Stokes, and Tyler SI. Lamb was the only school that had a separate lottery for Spanish dominant families. The other schools were the luck of the draw. Lamb was grandfathered in under the old charter laws. If Lamb was created today, they too, would have a prohibition against separate lotteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1....The impression I'm getting, from the outside, is that being indifferent to chinese cultural norms/abc sensitivities, and fairly militant about it, is the norm for parents at this inbred charter.

So people are mainly interested in fleeing unacceptable IB schools, believing that bilingualism will make their kids smarter, and ultimately more marketable in a increasingly globalized labor force?

After wading through this thread, can't help but marvel that chinese parents are involved. The arrangement sounds awkward as heck, no matter how good the kids' Mandarin might be. YY, hire a savvy PR team cheap after the Dems or Republicans lose in Nov!

True (and I'm a YY parent who's very happy with the school as is - my child is a rising K, no complaints) except maybe the last paragraph about needing a savvy PR team. Waitlist is long and growing longer every year... probably will be like 2Rivers and Stokes where only siblings will get placement soon.

On second thought, don't think anyone gives this much thought. Certainly not enough to be militant about it. Afterall, everyone there was lucky enough to get a place in the lottery (if they didn't have sibling/employee/founder preference).

[Anonymous]

11:27 again. I do however wish that YY would allow older students admittance upon passing a language test. Perhaps when they change the charter for the rising grades, it is something that will get discussed. I know that Stokes accepts older children, and then provide extra work to get them to language sufficiency.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, YY is an American school where Chinese language is taught. It is not a Chinese school. If having an AA head of school and a predominantly AA student body is a problem for you please go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1....The impression I'm getting, from the outside, is that being indifferent to chinese cultural norms/abc sensitivities, and fairly militant about it, is the norm for parents at this inbred charter.

So people are mainly interested in fleeing unacceptable IB schools, believing that bilingualism will make their kids smarter, and ultimately more marketable in a increasingly globalized labor force?

After wading through this thread, can't help but marvel that chinese parents are involved. The arrangement sounds awkward as heck, no matter how good the kids' Mandarin might be. YY, hire a savvy PR team cheap after the Dems or Republicans lose in Nov!

True (and I'm a YY parent who's very happy with the school as is - my child is a rising K, no complaints) except maybe the last paragraph about needing a savvy PR team. Waitlist is long and growing longer every year... probably will be like 2Rivers and Stokes where only siblings will get placement soon.

On second thought, don't think anyone gives this much thought. Certainly not enough to be militant about it. Afterall, everyone there was lucky enough to get a place in the lottery (if they didn't have sibling/employee/founder preference).

That is the current make-up of LAMB.