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

[Anonymous]

In regard to the comments regarding people needing to lie to compliment YY kids on their Chinese, don't people do this in every language? I frequently hear people complimenting others who are obviously learning English on how well they are doing. I take another language that I started as an adult, and I have received very undeserved compliments from speakers of that language.

I think it is common for speakers of any language to complement others who are learning that language, both to be polite and encouraging. This not at all something that is unique to Chinese speakers in talking to kids from YY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Again, though, couldn't this be said of other language-immersion schools? Why would this be true for a Chinese-immersion school but not a Spanish-immersion school, for instance?

Because Spanish language and culture and opportunities to practice in real life are more common in the US.

Yes, but you're talking about using the language in the school context and concerns over whether it detracts from the child's ability to learn core subjects. If a child is struggling in math, teaching in another language - any language - may be too much for that child regardless of how much exposure may be available outside of school. If the child has little natural language ability overall, it may not be worth sending him or her to an immersion school where half of the day is taught in another language - regardless of the language being taught.

Actually IMO most language-immersion courses don't give kids who are non-native speakers much true facility with the language in the end, unless the parents make learning the language their core goal for the kids in life (after-school supplementation, weeks of language immersion summer camp, etc.). I don't know anything about YY, have just seen other immersion programs.

[Anonymous]

I don't get the straw man of "why are people complaining my YY kid doesn't speak perfect Chinese???"

My concern is that a second grader can't say most things a second grader thinks, i.e., isn't "growing up" in proficiency in the language as they grow up, as in, kids not able to take what they're thinking in English like, "hey I just got a new LEGO set and I love it," if they can't say anything more complicated than "I don't eat pork."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the straw man of "why are people complaining my YY kid doesn't speak perfect Chinese???"

My concern is that a second grader can't say most things a second grader thinks, i.e., isn't "growing up" in proficiency in the language as they grow up, as in, kids not able to take what they're thinking in English like, "hey I just got a new LEGO set and I love it," if they can't say anything more complicated than "I don't eat pork."

No, you have it backwards. Why are you "concerned" about these children at all? They are children who are learning a second, and for many YY kids, a third foreign language. Who are you to determine how far some random second grader should be in their foreign language studies? Do you think all the Sela second graders are expressing themselves in second grade level Hebrew? Are you angry at the Reggio Emilia kids who produce perfectly average art despite being in an arts-focused school? What is wrong with people who are sniping at children who are tackling a language most American adults find impossible to learn at all??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In regard to the comments regarding people needing to lie to compliment YY kids on their Chinese, don't people do this in every language? I frequently hear people complimenting others who are obviously learning English on how well they are doing. I take another language that I started as an adult, and I have received very undeserved compliments from speakers of that language.

I think it is common for speakers of any language to complement others who are learning that language, both to be polite and encouraging. This not at all something that is unique to Chinese speakers in talking to kids from YY.

I agree, but the condescending tone used by those posters and the fact that they always point out how they have to lie because the kids' Chinese is so terrible is what makes those particular posts annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we take the kids to a heritage language program in MD each weekend,

Hi, Do you mind sharing which heritage language program in MD that you use? Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regard to the comments regarding people needing to lie to compliment YY kids on their Chinese, don't people do this in every language? I frequently hear people complimenting others who are obviously learning English on how well they are doing. I take another language that I started as an adult, and I have received very undeserved compliments from speakers of that language.

I think it is common for speakers of any language to complement others who are learning that language, both to be polite and encouraging. This not at all something that is unique to Chinese speakers in talking to kids from YY.

I agree, but the condescending tone used by those posters and the fact that they always point out how they have to lie because the kids' Chinese is so terrible is what makes those particular posts annoying.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm just wondering why those people feel that it is something unique to Chinese culture to be polite and to compliment others, particularly children, who are learning their language.

In my experience, the same is true of many, many cultures. It is a silly point for them to make as a criticism of this school.

I regularly hear English speakers lie when they politely compliment the English skills of people who are obviously still learning the language. Should these people stop trying to learn English because they are not speaking it perfectly? Maybe they'll never speak English perfectly, but they are trying and continuing to learn something new, just like these children. Learning another language and about the culture from which it originates is always a good thing, even if one never achieves absolute fluency.

[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.

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.

[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.

Why so defensive?

[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.

It's not so complicated PP.

Vast majority of YY families do not live IB for a good DCPS (look at the maps the charter board publishes each year).

YY is their best public options. They'd probably enroll if it were Greek, German, Farsi or Latin immersion.

Their options and priorities are different.

[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.

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.

Why so defensive?

I'm not hearing defensive. This makes sense.

[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.

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.

It's not so complicated PP.

Vast majority of YY families do not live IB for a good DCPS (look at the maps the charter board publishes each year).

YY is their best public options. They'd probably enroll if it were Greek, German, Farsi or Latin immersion.

Their options and priorities are different.

I give you the Greek, German, Farsi or Latin, seasoned with vigorous claims that they'd alwaaaays wanted their children to study this or that language and culture, and mainly selected the school for that reason. Why they even celebrate the relevant national holidays at home. The elephant in the room is that they can't afford homes in Upper NW, or the Brent or Maury Districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's not so complicated PP.

Vast majority of YY families do not live IB for a good DCPS (look at the maps the charter board publishes each year).

YY is their best public options. They'd probably enroll if it were Greek, German, Farsi or Latin immersion.

Their options and priorities are different.

I give you the Greek, German, Farsi or Latin, seasoned with vigorous claims that they'd alwaaaays wanted their children to study this or that language and culture, and mainly selected the school for that reason. Why they even celebrate the relevant national holidays at home. The elephant in the room is that they can't afford homes in Upper NW, or the Brent or Maury Districts.[/quote]

You sound unhinged. Why don't you tend to your own garden?

[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.

Your need to keep coming here and bragging about your children is pathetic. Seriously, I don't get it. You sound like you are desperate to prove your own worth. Please salvage some self respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It's not so complicated PP.

Vast majority of YY families do not live IB for a good DCPS (look at the maps the charter board publishes each year).

YY is their best public options. They'd probably enroll if it were Greek, German, Farsi or Latin immersion.

Their options and priorities are different.

I give you the Greek, German, Farsi or Latin, seasoned with vigorous claims that they'd alwaaaays wanted their children to study this or that language and culture, and mainly selected the school for that reason. Why they even celebrate the relevant national holidays at home. The elephant in the room is that they can't afford homes in Upper NW, or the Brent or Maury Districts.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

It is a public charter school open to anyone in the district, regardless of income or ethnicity or language fluency. That school is solely judged on the students' success, or failure, on PARCC. And they are doing pretty well on that metric.

I'm sorry you are bitter than YY wasn't what you were hoping for, but you really need to get some help and move on.