Yu Ying - Transferring to Yu Ying from another state

[Anonymous]

Clearly the intent of the lawmakers and PCS governance body was NOT to have everything be equal, else we would not have diverse, specialized offerings to meet specialized demands like ESL Adult Education (Carlos Rosario), Special Needs (St. Colettas), or for that matter Mandarin or other Language Immersion et cetera.

The poster who keeps trying to insist otherwise is trying to pitch revisionist history and undermine the central purpose of what charters have always been about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly the intent of the lawmakers and PCS governance body was NOT to have everything be equal, else we would not have diverse, specialized offerings to meet specialized demands like ESL Adult Education (Carlos Rosario), Special Needs (St. Colettas), or for that matter Mandarin or other Language Immersion et cetera.

The poster who keeps trying to insist otherwise is trying to pitch revisionist history and undermine the central purpose of what charters have always been about.

Wow, are you really that ignorant about education? There is a vastly different world of decisions, policies, values and structures when it comes to curricula and how students are taught/school culture... and when it comes to who a school is available to/who can apply/who can attend.

No one (except you) has confused issues of the understandable variety and diversity in curricula, language, style, method... with issues of who has the opportunity to apply and whether some have a better chance than others due to location, academic ability, language proficiency, etc.

Different issues.

The posters talking about original intent of the charter board and congress and many founders of charter schools are talking about who can apply, and also who gets to get in when there are more people wanting to go then there are available spots. Congress, City Council, and school boards, as they funnel money to school systems, have a lot to weigh and create policy around re: who needs which services and who specific funds are targeted to serve.

That is an entirely different question from dictating or (in the case of most charters) allowing wide latitude around ***how*** students get taught. How do they learn best? Expeditionary learning? Play-based learning? Immersion? Should schools have a commitment to sustainability (i.e. green schools, like Mundo Verde and Yu Ying)?

No one ever in the charter school movement has said "every school must teach the same way". For you to think anyone is saying that here is freaky and you sound like you have no idea what's going on. This debate (for lack of a better word) is about how decisions are made re: not only who gets to apply on paper, but who gets special consideration, or not special consideration. And the root is in the strings that came attached to receiving federal funds for these schools.

No one is revising history. You just have not been able to follow along in the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly the intent of the lawmakers and PCS governance body was NOT to have everything be equal, else we would not have diverse, specialized offerings to meet specialized demands like ESL Adult Education (Carlos Rosario), Special Needs (St. Colettas), or for that matter Mandarin or other Language Immersion et cetera.

The poster who keeps trying to insist otherwise is trying to pitch revisionist history and undermine the central purpose of what charters have always been about.

Wow, are you really that ignorant about education? There is a vastly different world of decisions, policies, values and structures when it comes to curricula and how students are taught/school culture... and when it comes to who a school is available to/who can apply/who can attend.

No one (except you) has confused issues of the understandable variety and diversity in curricula, language, style, method... with issues of who has the opportunity to apply and whether some have a better chance than others due to location, academic ability, language proficiency, etc.

Different issues.

The posters talking about original intent of the charter board and congress and many founders of charter schools are talking about who can apply, and also who gets to get in when there are more people wanting to go then there are available spots. Congress, City Council, and school boards, as they funnel money to school systems, have a lot to weigh and create policy around re: who needs which services and who specific funds are targeted to serve.

That is an entirely different question from dictating or (in the case of most charters) allowing wide latitude around ***how*** students get taught. How do they learn best? Expeditionary learning? Play-based learning? Immersion? Should schools have a commitment to sustainability (i.e. green schools, like Mundo Verde and Yu Ying)?

No one ever in the charter school movement has said "every school must teach the same way". For you to think anyone is saying that here is freaky and you sound like you have no idea what's going on. This debate (for lack of a better word) is about how decisions are made re: not only who gets to apply on paper, but who gets special consideration, or not special consideration. And the root is in the strings that came attached to receiving federal funds for these schools.

No one is revising history. You just have not been able to follow along in the conversation.

I agree with all you said PP - including that 13:47 is clueless - but your post is hard to follow too. Simplified: no one thinks congress wants all charter schools the same. Not what is taught, not how it's taught. But there is a duty to spend public charter funds in a way thct does of unfairly advantage one specific group. Random lotteries are the great equalizer, and no one, not even native speakers, is DISadvantaged by a lottery.

What a school teaches and how is a wholly different question from how students gain admittance. 13:47 doesn't understand that no one is saying anything about what is taught. Only discussing how you get in. And yes, there is original intent on that: through random lottery for charters and only through random lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly the intent of the lawmakers and PCS governance body was NOT to have everything be equal, else we would not have diverse, specialized offerings to meet specialized demands like ESL Adult Education (Carlos Rosario), Special Needs (St. Colettas), or for that matter Mandarin or other Language Immersion et cetera.

The poster who keeps trying to insist otherwise is trying to pitch revisionist history and undermine the central purpose of what charters have always been about.

Wow, are you really that ignorant about education? There is a vastly different world of decisions, policies, values and structures when it comes to curricula and how students are taught/school culture... and when it comes to who a school is available to/who can apply/who can attend.

No one (except you) has confused issues of the understandable variety and diversity in curricula, language, style, method... with issues of who has the opportunity to apply and whether some have a better chance than others due to location, academic ability, language proficiency, etc.

Different issues.

The posters talking about original intent of the charter board and congress and many founders of charter schools are talking about who can apply, and also who gets to get in when there are more people wanting to go then there are available spots. Congress, City Council, and school boards, as they funnel money to school systems, have a lot to weigh and create policy around re: who needs which services and who specific funds are targeted to serve.

That is an entirely different question from dictating or (in the case of most charters) allowing wide latitude around ***how*** students get taught. How do they learn best? Expeditionary learning? Play-based learning? Immersion? Should schools have a commitment to sustainability (i.e. green schools, like Mundo Verde and Yu Ying)?

No one ever in the charter school movement has said "every school must teach the same way". For you to think anyone is saying that here is freaky and you sound like you have no idea what's going on. This debate (for lack of a better word) is about how decisions are made re: not only who gets to apply on paper, but who gets special consideration, or not special consideration. And the root is in the strings that came attached to receiving federal funds for these schools.

No one is revising history. You just have not been able to follow along in the conversation.

This was addressing some of the previous posters who clearly want to butt heads with the very notion that Yu Ying has expectations of Chinese immersion.

How does "equal access" read in this conversation? It reads foolishly, because in this thread, it's NOT reading as "equal access for students on equal footing". Maybe you have your own idea of this but clearly it's not the same as what others are saying and how this thread has been reading.

It's reading as "I don't care what they do, I just want to get my kid into a good school"

But that effectively turns into, "Why not put a kid who knows zilch about Mandarin in with kids who already have 4 years of it under their belts"

Which is as foolish as "Why not throw the kid who can't swim into the deep end of the pool which is for experienced swimmers?"

Or, "why not wander into a store and leave a 2-year-old crawling around outside unattended on a busy street corner, since adults can manage by themselves just fine there?"

Do you not agree that the this premise is fundamentally foolish? Let's establish and agree on that first before moving on to anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

I keep reading this thread, because I am hopeful that other immersion parents will share their experiences. I don't think that very many parents understand the intricacies associated with immersion education. My desire to continue the language is akin to traditional education parents wanting their children to maintain on grade level instruction in English, Math and Science. It is not my intention to deprive another family of immersion education, but to satisfy my child's educational needs. Any parent should be able to do that.

Thank you for your input!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

I keep reading this thread, because I am hopeful that other immersion parents will share their experiences. I don't think that very many parents understand the intricacies associated with immersion education. My desire to continue the language is akin to traditional education parents wanting their children to maintain on grade level instruction in English, Math and Science. It is not my intention to deprive another family of immersion education, but to satisfy my child's educational needs. Any parent should be able to do that.

Thank you for your input!

My heart goes out to you--we're a YY family who were facing a move a few years ago, and the idea of sending our offspring to a school that didn't offer Mandarin seemed like such a dishonoring of years of amazing work.

But your answer regarding YY is: you can explore the possibility of doing the YY lottery to enroll your child to repeat 2nd grade, or you can do private school, or you can give up your dream of living in the city and research Mandarin immersion in MoCo, MD. Your desire to continue your child's Mandarin education is admirable, but YY's hands are tied. The legal reasons for that (and the spectacular DCUM fight over the reasons for those rules) has basically nothing to do with your question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

I keep reading this thread, because I am hopeful that other immersion parents will share their experiences. I don't think that very many parents understand the intricacies associated with immersion education. My desire to continue the language is akin to traditional education parents wanting their children to maintain on grade level instruction in English, Math and Science. It is not my intention to deprive another family of immersion education, but to satisfy my child's educational needs. Any parent should be able to do that.

Thank you for your input!

My heart goes out to you--we're a YY family who were facing a move a few years ago, and the idea of sending our offspring to a school that didn't offer Mandarin seemed like such a dishonoring of years of amazing work.

But your answer regarding YY is: you can explore the possibility of doing the YY lottery to enroll your child to repeat 2nd grade, or you can do private school, or you can give up your dream of living in the city and research Mandarin immersion in MoCo, MD. Your desire to continue your child's Mandarin education is admirable, but YY's hands are tied. The legal reasons for that (and the spectacular DCUM fight over the reasons for those rules) has basically nothing to do with your question.

Are you familiar with a private Mandarin immersion program other than Reid Temple in Maryland?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't Washington International School have Mandarin immersion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't Washington International School have Mandarin immersion?

No, Mandarin is an elective beginning in Middle School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly the intent of the lawmakers and PCS governance body was NOT to have everything be equal, else we would not have diverse, specialized offerings to meet specialized demands like ESL Adult Education (Carlos Rosario), Special Needs (St. Colettas), or for that matter Mandarin or other Language Immersion et cetera.

The poster who keeps trying to insist otherwise is trying to pitch revisionist history and undermine the central purpose of what charters have always been about.

Wow, are you really that ignorant about education? There is a vastly different world of decisions, policies, values and structures when it comes to curricula and how students are taught/school culture... and when it comes to who a school is available to/who can apply/who can attend.

No one (except you) has confused issues of the understandable variety and diversity in curricula, language, style, method... with issues of who has the opportunity to apply and whether some have a better chance than others due to location, academic ability, language proficiency, etc.

Different issues.

The posters talking about original intent of the charter board and congress and many founders of charter schools are talking about who can apply, and also who gets to get in when there are more people wanting to go then there are available spots. Congress, City Council, and school boards, as they funnel money to school systems, have a lot to weigh and create policy around re: who needs which services and who specific funds are targeted to serve.

That is an entirely different question from dictating or (in the case of most charters) allowing wide latitude around ***how*** students get taught. How do they learn best? Expeditionary learning? Play-based learning? Immersion? Should schools have a commitment to sustainability (i.e. green schools, like Mundo Verde and Yu Ying)?

No one ever in the charter school movement has said "every school must teach the same way". For you to think anyone is saying that here is freaky and you sound like you have no idea what's going on. This debate (for lack of a better word) is about how decisions are made re: not only who gets to apply on paper, but who gets special consideration, or not special consideration. And the root is in the strings that came attached to receiving federal funds for these schools.

No one is revising history. You just have not been able to follow along in the conversation.

This was addressing some of the previous posters who clearly want to butt heads with the very notion that Yu Ying has expectations of Chinese immersion.

How does "equal access" read in this conversation? It reads foolishly, because in this thread, it's NOT reading as "equal access for students on equal footing". Maybe you have your own idea of this but clearly it's not the same as what others are saying and how this thread has been reading.

It's reading as "I don't care what they do, I just want to get my kid into a good school"

But that effectively turns into, "Why not put a kid who knows zilch about Mandarin in with kids who already have 4 years of it under their belts"

Which is as foolish as "Why not throw the kid who can't swim into the deep end of the pool which is for experienced swimmers?"

Or, "why not wander into a store and leave a 2-year-old crawling around outside unattended on a busy street corner, since adults can manage by themselves just fine there?"

Do you not agree that the this premise is fundamentally foolish? Let's establish and agree on that first before moving on to anything else.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like you really care about what you're saying, but your examples are bizarre and it's hard to see how they apply to anything that YY is already doing or proposing to do.

OP, good luck with your efforts. Of course any parent would and should try to find the best match for their child, and for the family's educational priorities. Hopefully by now you're clear on what the parameters are (sorry, I don't know anything about private schools or offerings in other counties), but you sound like a very good researcher, there is no doubt you'll make the best decision you can. Good luck to you and your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't Washington International School have Mandarin immersion?

No, Mandarin is an elective beginning in Middle School.

Yes, and it's not immersion or even truly a bilngual school re: Mandarin in Middle School. It's a class, not a language track.

[Anonymous]

I think some posters here and many parents really do not understand what immersion is all about - since they seem to think it's no big deal to send a kid with no language experience into a school where his peers would have been participating in an immersion program for years.

I think some seriously think, "oh, no big deal, so they have a Mandarin class - maybe little Johnny can skip that and take something else - or if he does have to take it but isn't good at Mandarin, maybe he'll get a D in that class but everything else will be OK." Immersion means it's not just one language class. It means it will be coming up all throughout the schoolday. It will show up in History class. Science class. And so on. Further, language is a lifelong learning journey. You don't master Mandarin in a semester. A student coming in as a newbie to a room full of peers who have been working on it for years will flounder.

He'll be like that kid drowning in the deep end of the pool above. That parent will be doing their child a huge disservice if they don't understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some posters here and many parents really do not understand what immersion is all about - since they seem to think it's no big deal to send a kid with no language experience into a school where his peers would have been participating in an immersion program for years.

I think some seriously think, "oh, no big deal, so they have a Mandarin class - maybe little Johnny can skip that and take something else - or if he does have to take it but isn't good at Mandarin, maybe he'll get a D in that class but everything else will be OK." Immersion means it's not just one language class. It means it will be coming up all throughout the schoolday. It will show up in History class. Science class. And so on. Further, language is a lifelong learning journey. You don't master Mandarin in a semester. A student coming in as a newbie to a room full of peers who have been working on it for years will flounder.

He'll be like that kid drowning in the deep end of the pool above. That parent will be doing their child a huge disservice if they don't understand that.

And I think people such as yourself hear things no one is saying. Who in this thread is minimizing or dismissing the work it takes to help a student who doesn't start at the entry grade get up to speed in proficiency? Quote please.

[Anonymous]

Apply for second grade lottery. If he gets in, they will realize after enrollment he is on third grade level and move him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

As a Yu Ying parent getting ready to move to another state, we are doing everything in our power to get into another immersion charter. I've yet to find one that doesn't allow test in. Clearly, the entire country must be against poor children. Honestly, the argument that rich kids with tutors will take over these schools if they can test in is preposterous. We are a bilingual household and I can't tell you how long it takes children to proficiently speak in both languages (not just understand). If one of those languages is English, it can take even longer. Not allowing testing at higher grades just discourages native speakers. I'm starting to wonder if most on this thread are okay with discriminating against Chinese, not just African Americans.

1. Liar. How many states are you attempting to move into, exactly?

2. You didn't look very hard throughout "the entire country" for such a school that doesn't permit test-in in higher grades so as to bypass the lottery process. I found three in three minutes. Check out yinghua acsmdemy in Minneapolis as one of these examples. Lottery. Period.