CMI vs YY for PK3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite.

We get it, hardly anybody at YY cares that most of the kids speak strange, crappy Mandarin. Parents don't even care that the admins don't speak it. Parents think their kids are fluent if they hire a tutor and don't care how they will perform on international baccalaureate tests. Draw your own conclusions.

I have traveled to China (Beijing, Dalian, Shanghai and HK) several times, and I wouldn't call the Chinese "exceedingly polite." Quite the opposite, really--often pushy and rude. However, that's for another conversation.

That said, I don't think that it should surprise anyone that native Mandarin speakers would say nice things about your child's poor Chinese. Honestly, very few people, no matter their native tongue, will tell a parent that their child doesn't speak the non-native language very well. If the child's Mandarin, Spanish, French, etc. sucks, the native speaker will most likely say nothing (to your face) or they will lie like a rug.

Lumping all these diverse cultures into one and calling them rude - maybe the common theme is you?

Don't take my word for it--Google it: "Chinese", "rude", "pushy" You may also want to add "2008 Olympics" for good measure. The Chinese government actually had drills to teach the Chinese how to line up during Olympic events without pushing each other out the way.

Listen, I'm merely responding to the previous poster's attempt to make it seem that the Chinese are paragons of good manners and politeness. In my experience, it's simply not true. I have nothing against Chinese people. China is an enormous country, and of course there are many polite Chinese people. However, my experience with Chinese pushiness has been quite consistent, and many others who have actually traveled to China know of what I speak. Perhaps your experience will be different.

I lived in Hong Kong (which the fact you just lumped in with the rest of China shows your ignorance about all things Chinese) and have to say, I disagree. But maybe, get out of the cities. Also what you define as "rude" is just a cultural norm. Not waiting in line? In some cultures you would be seen as rude for not pushing forward to get the food (or item first).

Also, I think the poster just said Chinese = polite, you tend to exaggerate a bit what her post reflected.

"It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite."

A hit dog will holler. MY EXPERIENCE is that many Chinese people living in China are very rude and (literally) pushy. Get over it!

I might point out, that your experience with people being rude, may be that it is you. Case in point, see your response above.

If that makes you feel better, dear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite.

We get it, hardly anybody at YY cares that most of the kids speak strange, crappy Mandarin. Parents don't even care that the admins don't speak it. Parents think their kids are fluent if they hire a tutor and don't care how they will perform on international baccalaureate tests. Draw your own conclusions.

I have traveled to China (Beijing, Dalian, Shanghai and HK) several times, and I wouldn't call the Chinese "exceedingly polite." Quite the opposite, really--often pushy and rude. However, that's for another conversation.

That said, I don't think that it should surprise anyone that native Mandarin speakers would say nice things about your child's poor Chinese. Honestly, very few people, no matter their native tongue, will tell a parent that their child doesn't speak the non-native language very well. If the child's Mandarin, Spanish, French, etc. sucks, the native speaker will most likely say nothing (to your face) or they will lie like a rug.

Lumping all these diverse cultures into one and calling them rude - maybe the common theme is you?

Don't take my word for it--Google it: "Chinese", "rude", "pushy" You may also want to add "2008 Olympics" for good measure. The Chinese government actually had drills to teach the Chinese how to line up during Olympic events without pushing each other out the way.

Listen, I'm merely responding to the previous poster's attempt to make it seem that the Chinese are paragons of good manners and politeness. In my experience, it's simply not true. I have nothing against Chinese people. China is an enormous country, and of course there are many polite Chinese people. However, my experience with Chinese pushiness has been quite consistent, and many others who have actually traveled to China know of what I speak. Perhaps your experience will be different.

I lived in Hong Kong (which the fact you just lumped in with the rest of China shows your ignorance about all things Chinese) and have to say, I disagree. But maybe, get out of the cities. Also what you define as "rude" is just a cultural norm. Not waiting in line? In some cultures you would be seen as rude for not pushing forward to get the food (or item first).

Also, I think the poster just said Chinese = polite, you tend to exaggerate a bit what her post reflected.

"It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite."

A hit dog will holler. MY EXPERIENCE is that many Chinese people living in China are very rude and (literally) pushy. Get over it!

This is not considered rude in China. Don't push (see what I did there) your western, white person cultural norms on them.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was only a western white cultural norm to not want to be elbowed and literally pushed out of the way at tourist attractions and events. Silly me. I witnessed a Chinese woman holding an infant at the Forbidden City who was nearly shoved to the ground so that someone else could get a better view. I guess she should have just expected to be handled roughly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LEA is Local Education Agency - essentially its own school district so the school must accommodate anyone who gets through the lottery (unlike DCPS which can send you to a different school for different, particular need).

The term LEA is often referred to in special education/ in IEPs. DCPS, as you may know, has a crappy record with special education (to say the least). So joining all charters into one LEA would take away charters' abilities to administer their own special ed programs. And as a parent of a kid with an IEP at an immersion charter, I would fight tooth and nail against that. Don't want to be part of DCPS/ OSSE-wide special ed.

Right, so there's a quality-of-special-ed-programs dimension to the single lottery system underpinning DC charter admissions, stemming from the LEA arrangement specific to this municipality. While parents like you appreciate the autonomy the law affords charters in the provision of special ed services, the autonomy doesn't extend to charters establishing the language dominant lotteries DCPS uses to create dual-immersion programs. The law is, thus, a double-edged sword in promoting educational best practices. It goes so far as to prevent immersion charters from replacing upper grades drop-outs with native speakers who would enhance program quality for all students.

What from what you're saying, it sounds like states whose charter laws support screening of students can freely establish multiple lotteries to a single school. This is something I've never understood when YY parents argue that their program is at the mercy of "federal charter law" in its inability to enroll more than a tiny number of bilingual Chinese-speaking children.

Do you see a loophole in the LEA set up DC immersion charters could exploit to recruit native speakers in larger numbers without pushing the envelope on breaking charter law, or way the law could be revised to do this? Would a change in the law necessarily jeopardize the charters' ability to administer their own special ed programs? Is there no smart way to safeguard a good policy while jettisoning a myopic one? I know that LAMB's been in hot water with DCPC various times for creatively giving preferential treatment in admissions to Spanish-speaking students. DCPC argues that LAMB is breaking federal charter law. LAMB argues that it can't fulfill its mission responsibly without enrolling and retaining many bilingual children. The conversation goes nowhere.

Friends who've bailed from Tyler Spanish Immersion, LAMB and Mundo Verde for Oyster have convinced me that dual-immersion is not just a worthy goal, it's the only approach that works in teaching little kids from homes without native speakers to really speak languages. The truth is that YY parents on these threads decry "Tiger parents" slamming their kids' weak Mandarin without arguing for what's in their interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite.

We get it, hardly anybody at YY cares that most of the kids speak strange, crappy Mandarin. Parents don't even care that the admins don't speak it. Parents think their kids are fluent if they hire a tutor and don't care how they will perform on international baccalaureate tests. Draw your own conclusions.

I have traveled to China (Beijing, Dalian, Shanghai and HK) several times, and I wouldn't call the Chinese "exceedingly polite." Quite the opposite, really--often pushy and rude. However, that's for another conversation.

That said, I don't think that it should surprise anyone that native Mandarin speakers would say nice things about your child's poor Chinese. Honestly, very few people, no matter their native tongue, will tell a parent that their child doesn't speak the non-native language very well. If the child's Mandarin, Spanish, French, etc. sucks, the native speaker will most likely say nothing (to your face) or they will lie like a rug.

Lumping all these diverse cultures into one and calling them rude - maybe the common theme is you?

Don't take my word for it--Google it: "Chinese", "rude", "pushy" You may also want to add "2008 Olympics" for good measure. The Chinese government actually had drills to teach the Chinese how to line up during Olympic events without pushing each other out the way.

Listen, I'm merely responding to the previous poster's attempt to make it seem that the Chinese are paragons of good manners and politeness. In my experience, it's simply not true. I have nothing against Chinese people. China is an enormous country, and of course there are many polite Chinese people. However, my experience with Chinese pushiness has been quite consistent, and many others who have actually traveled to China know of what I speak. Perhaps your experience will be different.

I lived in Hong Kong (which the fact you just lumped in with the rest of China shows your ignorance about all things Chinese) and have to say, I disagree. But maybe, get out of the cities. Also what you define as "rude" is just a cultural norm. Not waiting in line? In some cultures you would be seen as rude for not pushing forward to get the food (or item first).

Also, I think the poster just said Chinese = polite, you tend to exaggerate a bit what her post reflected.

"It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite."

A hit dog will holler. MY EXPERIENCE is that many Chinese people living in China are very rude and (literally) pushy. Get over it!

This is not considered rude in China. Don't push (see what I did there) your western, white person cultural norms on them.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was only a western white cultural norm to not want to be elbowed and literally pushed out of the way at tourist attractions and events. Silly me. I witnessed a Chinese woman holding an infant at the Forbidden City who was nearly shoved to the ground so that someone else could get a better view. I guess she should have just expected to be handled roughly.

This happens all the time at tourist locations, try going to the Washington Monument. Not sure why you hate the Chinese, but let's get back on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A: Our kid's Chinese is great!

B: It's not. It sucks. My kids and I laugh about it.

A: Our neighbor is Chinese and she said it's excellent.

B: I lied about that.

A: But she gets A's and the teacher says she's doing fine!

B: The teacher lied.

A: The tutor says her tones are good.

B: Yeah, they lied, too.


A: ...

B: We're polite that way.

A (in Mandarin): Hey, kiddo, hey neighbor, how are things going for you at YY these days? What grade are you in this year?

B (in Mandarin): I am good.

A: I heard you went on a trip to China recently with your whole class. What did you see there? What did you do?

B: We went to China.

A: Did you visit the Forbidden City and the Terracotta Army? Did you ride on trains, take boats, take hikes, eat out, stay with a host family?

B: We ate apples.

A: Wow, what a fantastic trip you must have had. How wonderful for you. Your Chinese is so good now.

B: Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LEA is Local Education Agency - essentially its own school district so the school must accommodate anyone who gets through the lottery (unlike DCPS which can send you to a different school for different, particular need).

The term LEA is often referred to in special education/ in IEPs. DCPS, as you may know, has a crappy record with special education (to say the least). So joining all charters into one LEA would take away charters' abilities to administer their own special ed programs. And as a parent of a kid with an IEP at an immersion charter, I would fight tooth and nail against that. Don't want to be part of DCPS/ OSSE-wide special ed.

Right, so there's a quality-of-special-ed-programs dimension to the single lottery system underpinning DC charter admissions, stemming from the LEA arrangement specific to this municipality. While parents like you appreciate the autonomy the law affords charters in the provision of special ed services, the autonomy doesn't extend to charters establishing the language dominant lotteries DCPS uses to create dual-immersion programs. The law is, thus, a double-edged sword in promoting educational best practices. It goes so far as to prevent immersion charters from replacing upper grades drop-outs with native speakers who would enhance program quality for all students.

What from what you're saying, it sounds like states whose charter laws support screening of students can freely establish multiple lotteries to a single school. This is something I've never understood when YY parents argue that their program is at the mercy of "federal charter law" in its inability to enroll more than a tiny number of bilingual Chinese-speaking children.

Do you see a loophole in the LEA set up DC immersion charters could exploit to recruit native speakers in larger numbers without pushing the envelope on breaking charter law, or way the law could be revised to do this? Would a change in the law necessarily jeopardize the charters' ability to administer their own special ed programs? Is there no smart way to safeguard a good policy while jettisoning a myopic one? I know that LAMB's been in hot water with DCPC various times for creatively giving preferential treatment in admissions to Spanish-speaking students. DCPC argues that LAMB is breaking federal charter law. LAMB argues that it can't fulfill its mission responsibly without enrolling and retaining many bilingual children. The conversation goes nowhere.

Friends who've bailed from Tyler Spanish Immersion, LAMB and Mundo Verde for Oyster have convinced me that dual-immersion is not just a worthy goal, it's the only approach that works in teaching little kids from homes without native speakers to really speak languages. The truth is that YY parents on these threads decry "Tiger parents" slamming their kids' weak Mandarin without arguing for what's in their interest.

As I understand it, the difference between DC and other local school districts (such as the Western MA one mentioned upthread) is that Congress passed the School Reform Act, which established charters in the District. http://focusdc.org/history

So it's the problems associated with that.

I think the only way the LEAs could change the charter school law is to band together to require preference for native speakers. I know YY tried that in the past, by itself, and failed, even though there's a much smaller pool of Chinese speakers in the District than Spanish speakers, for example.

The only reason I brought up special ed administration was that someone (maybe you) suggested that a multi-charter school LEA (as I think may be common in other states, though DC is the only place where I have experience) could change the situation for attracting native speakers for the better. The Western Mass Chinese immersion school that someone mentioned upthread is open to all Massachusetts residents: http://www.pvcics.org/enrollment I don't know how they accomplish that, but here, to expand the pool of Chinese speakers, you'd have to open it up to MD and VA residents (somehow...with those governments paying I suppose). I don't know how to accomplish that. With the District involved, plus two states, it's far more complicated jurisdiction-wise than in Mass. But I agree it would be much better if YY could somehow have a larger pool of native/ near-native speakers (ABCs).

[Anonymous]

15:16 again. The change needed would be to allow lottery preference for native speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite.

We get it, hardly anybody at YY cares that most of the kids speak strange, crappy Mandarin. Parents don't even care that the admins don't speak it. Parents think their kids are fluent if they hire a tutor and don't care how they will perform on international baccalaureate tests. Draw your own conclusions.

I have traveled to China (Beijing, Dalian, Shanghai and HK) several times, and I wouldn't call the Chinese "exceedingly polite." Quite the opposite, really--often pushy and rude. However, that's for another conversation.

That said, I don't think that it should surprise anyone that native Mandarin speakers would say nice things about your child's poor Chinese. Honestly, very few people, no matter their native tongue, will tell a parent that their child doesn't speak the non-native language very well. If the child's Mandarin, Spanish, French, etc. sucks, the native speaker will most likely say nothing (to your face) or they will lie like a rug.

Lumping all these diverse cultures into one and calling them rude - maybe the common theme is you?

Don't take my word for it--Google it: "Chinese", "rude", "pushy" You may also want to add "2008 Olympics" for good measure. The Chinese government actually had drills to teach the Chinese how to line up during Olympic events without pushing each other out the way.

Listen, I'm merely responding to the previous poster's attempt to make it seem that the Chinese are paragons of good manners and politeness. In my experience, it's simply not true. I have nothing against Chinese people. China is an enormous country, and of course there are many polite Chinese people. However, my experience with Chinese pushiness has been quite consistent, and many others who have actually traveled to China know of what I speak. Perhaps your experience will be different.

I lived in Hong Kong (which the fact you just lumped in with the rest of China shows your ignorance about all things Chinese) and have to say, I disagree. But maybe, get out of the cities. Also what you define as "rude" is just a cultural norm. Not waiting in line? In some cultures you would be seen as rude for not pushing forward to get the food (or item first).

Also, I think the poster just said Chinese = polite, you tend to exaggerate a bit what her post reflected.

"It's called being Chinese = exceedingly polite."

A hit dog will holler. MY EXPERIENCE is that many Chinese people living in China are very rude and (literally) pushy. Get over it!

This is not considered rude in China. Don't push (see what I did there) your western, white person cultural norms on them.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was only a western white cultural norm to not want to be elbowed and literally pushed out of the way at tourist attractions and events. Silly me. I witnessed a Chinese woman holding an infant at the Forbidden City who was nearly shoved to the ground so that someone else could get a better view. I guess she should have just expected to be handled roughly.

This happens all the time at tourist locations, try going to the Washington Monument. Not sure why you hate the Chinese, but let's get back on topic.[/quote

Nope. I have lived in this country (major cities only) my entire life, and I have never witnessed the routine physical aggression that I have witnessed on every trip to China. I don't hate Chinese people, but you are certainly a shameless apologist for this aggressive behavior. Now, we can get back on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15:16 again. The change needed would be to allow lottery preference for native speakers.

Which is so unlikely to fly in DC. Not so much because of Chinese, but because it would cut way down on the number of English speaking spots at MV, LAMB, etc.

Maybe staff preference will help down the road.

[Anonymous]

Nope. I have lived in this country (major cities only) my entire life, and I have never witnessed the routine physical aggression that I have witnessed on every trip to China. I don't hate Chinese people, but you are certainly a shameless apologist for this aggressive behavior. Now, we can get back on topic.

[Anonymous]

15:16 the LEA thing comes into play a lot with special ed. But it's bigger than that.

When a charter school becomes an LEA (and in DC most do, but a couple use DCPS as their LEA) they agree to become a stand alone school district -- and like all public school districts they must be willing to enroll any students who want to attend. They can't turn away students with disabilities and they can't give special treatment to students who can speak a second language or are gifted in some way.

Maybe there is some way that a charter could decide to be part of the DCPS LEA -- but that probably means ceding a lot of control over hiring, budget, curriculum to DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A: Our kid's Chinese is great!

B: It's not. It sucks. My kids and I laugh about it.

A: Our neighbor is Chinese and she said it's excellent.

B: I lied about that.

A: But she gets A's and the teacher says she's doing fine!

B: The teacher lied.

A: The tutor says her tones are good.

B: Yeah, they lied, too.


A: ...

B: We're polite that way.

A (in Mandarin): Hey, kiddo, hey neighbor, how are things going for you at YY these days? What grade are you in this year?

B (in Mandarin): I am good.

A: I heard you went on a trip to China recently with your whole class. What did you see there? What did you do?

B: We went to China.

A: Did you visit the Forbidden City and the Terracotta Army? Did you ride on trains, take boats, take hikes, eat out, stay with a host family?

B: We ate apples.

A: Wow, what a fantastic trip you must have had. How wonderful for you. Your Chinese is so good now.

B: Thank you.

The first one is very funny. The second one sounds like my oldest son in English when adults talk to him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LEA is Local Education Agency - essentially its own school district so the school must accommodate anyone who gets through the lottery (unlike DCPS which can send you to a different school for different, particular need).

The term LEA is often referred to in special education/ in IEPs. DCPS, as you may know, has a crappy record with special education (to say the least). So joining all charters into one LEA would take away charters' abilities to administer their own special ed programs. And as a parent of a kid with an IEP at an immersion charter, I would fight tooth and nail against that. Don't want to be part of DCPS/ OSSE-wide special ed.

Right, so there's a quality-of-special-ed-programs dimension to the single lottery system underpinning DC charter admissions, stemming from the LEA arrangement specific to this municipality. While parents like you appreciate the autonomy the law affords charters in the provision of special ed services, the autonomy doesn't extend to charters establishing the language dominant lotteries DCPS uses to create dual-immersion programs. The law is, thus, a double-edged sword in promoting educational best practices. It goes so far as to prevent immersion charters from replacing upper grades drop-outs with native speakers who would enhance program quality for all students.

What from what you're saying, it sounds like states whose charter laws support screening of students can freely establish multiple lotteries to a single school. This is something I've never understood when YY parents argue that their program is at the mercy of "federal charter law" in its inability to enroll more than a tiny number of bilingual Chinese-speaking children.

Do you see a loophole in the LEA set up DC immersion charters could exploit to recruit native speakers in larger numbers without pushing the envelope on breaking charter law, or way the law could be revised to do this? Would a change in the law necessarily jeopardize the charters' ability to administer their own special ed programs? Is there no smart way to safeguard a good policy while jettisoning a myopic one? I know that LAMB's been in hot water with DCPC various times for creatively giving preferential treatment in admissions to Spanish-speaking students. DCPC argues that LAMB is breaking federal charter law. LAMB argues that it can't fulfill its mission responsibly without enrolling and retaining many bilingual children. The conversation goes nowhere.

Friends who've bailed from Tyler Spanish Immersion, LAMB and Mundo Verde for Oyster have convinced me that dual-immersion is not just a worthy goal, it's the only approach that works in teaching little kids from homes without native speakers to really speak languages. The truth is that YY parents on these threads decry "Tiger parents" slamming their kids' weak Mandarin without arguing for what's in their interest.

As I understand it, the difference between DC and other local school districts (such as the Western MA one mentioned upthread) is that Congress passed the School Reform Act, which established charters in the District. http://focusdc.org/history

So it's the problems associated with that.

I think the only way the LEAs could change the charter school law is to band together to require preference for native speakers. I know YY tried that in the past, by itself, and failed, even though there's a much smaller pool of Chinese speakers in the District than Spanish speakers, for example.

The only reason I brought up special ed administration was that someone (maybe you) suggested that a multi-charter school LEA (as I think may be common in other states, though DC is the only place where I have experience) could change the situation for attracting native speakers for the better. The Western Mass Chinese immersion school that someone mentioned upthread is open to all Massachusetts residents: http://www.pvcics.org/enrollment I don't know how they accomplish that, but here, to expand the pool of Chinese speakers, you'd have to open it up to MD and VA residents (somehow...with those governments paying I suppose). I don't know how to accomplish that. With the District involved, plus two states, it's far more complicated jurisdiction-wise than in Mass. But I agree it would be much better if YY could somehow have a larger pool of native/ near-native speakers (ABCs).

I see what you're saying, but YY could attract many more native speakers from DC simply by adding a language dominant lottery, and taking page from the way MoCo manages its two Mandarin immersion programs. Our dialect-speaking friends in DC avoid the YY lottery and DCI (they buy houses in Upper NW).

MoCo hires dialect-speaking administrators to run its Mandarin programs partly for their ability to do outreach to the heritage community. Admins are ABCs who speak good Cantonese and Mandarin. Technically, a kid testing in to replace a drop-out has to get through an admissions interview in Mandarin. Actually, Chinese parents know that any major dialect will do, because admins understand that a dialect-speaking kid can catch up in the basic Mandarin taught in a matter of months, then soar ahead, boosting standards for Chinese.

Also, MoCo uses pullout groups to transition kids from other dialects to Mandarin. Native speakers really like this, motivating them to come. YY could set up pullout groups easily, because many of their teachers speak Cantonese (unbeknownst to most parents). In the Bay Area, several Mandarin immersion schools are so determined to attract native speakers that they teach all the kids Cantonese until 2nd grade - it's a sharp recruitment tool that gets the local Chinese community on board. All the kids are then transitioned from Cantonese to Mandarin in 3rd grade, and by middle school, almost every student's Mandarin is impressive. My cousin, who sends his kid to one of these programs, reports that hiring au pairs and tutors is uncommon in his school community.

I know that the Amherst founders sent study teams to both MoCo and San Fran before hiring admins, developing a curriculum, and advertising the school in the local community. A college friend is an administrator there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LEA is Local Education Agency - essentially its own school district so the school must accommodate anyone who gets through the lottery (unlike DCPS which can send you to a different school for different, particular need).

The term LEA is often referred to in special education/ in IEPs. DCPS, as you may know, has a crappy record with special education (to say the least). So joining all charters into one LEA would take away charters' abilities to administer their own special ed programs. And as a parent of a kid with an IEP at an immersion charter, I would fight tooth and nail against that. Don't want to be part of DCPS/ OSSE-wide special ed.

Right, so there's a quality-of-special-ed-programs dimension to the single lottery system underpinning DC charter admissions, stemming from the LEA arrangement specific to this municipality. While parents like you appreciate the autonomy the law affords charters in the provision of special ed services, the autonomy doesn't extend to charters establishing the language dominant lotteries DCPS uses to create dual-immersion programs. The law is, thus, a double-edged sword in promoting educational best practices. It goes so far as to prevent immersion charters from replacing upper grades drop-outs with native speakers who would enhance program quality for all students.

What from what you're saying, it sounds like states whose charter laws support screening of students can freely establish multiple lotteries to a single school. This is something I've never understood when YY parents argue that their program is at the mercy of "federal charter law" in its inability to enroll more than a tiny number of bilingual Chinese-speaking children.

Do you see a loophole in the LEA set up DC immersion charters could exploit to recruit native speakers in larger numbers without pushing the envelope on breaking charter law, or way the law could be revised to do this? Would a change in the law necessarily jeopardize the charters' ability to administer their own special ed programs? Is there no smart way to safeguard a good policy while jettisoning a myopic one? I know that LAMB's been in hot water with DCPC various times for creatively giving preferential treatment in admissions to Spanish-speaking students. DCPC argues that LAMB is breaking federal charter law. LAMB argues that it can't fulfill its mission responsibly without enrolling and retaining many bilingual children. The conversation goes nowhere.

Friends who've bailed from Tyler Spanish Immersion, LAMB and Mundo Verde for Oyster have convinced me that dual-immersion is not just a worthy goal, it's the only approach that works in teaching little kids from homes without native speakers to really speak languages. The truth is that YY parents on these threads decry "Tiger parents" slamming their kids' weak Mandarin without arguing for what's in their interest.

As I understand it, the difference between DC and other local school districts (such as the Western MA one mentioned upthread) is that Congress passed the School Reform Act, which established charters in the District. http://focusdc.org/history

So it's the problems associated with that.

I think the only way the LEAs could change the charter school law is to band together to require preference for native speakers. I know YY tried that in the past, by itself, and failed, even though there's a much smaller pool of Chinese speakers in the District than Spanish speakers, for example.

The only reason I brought up special ed administration was that someone (maybe you) suggested that a multi-charter school LEA (as I think may be common in other states, though DC is the only place where I have experience) could change the situation for attracting native speakers for the better. The Western Mass Chinese immersion school that someone mentioned upthread is open to all Massachusetts residents: http://www.pvcics.org/enrollment I don't know how they accomplish that, but here, to expand the pool of Chinese speakers, you'd have to open it up to MD and VA residents (somehow...with those governments paying I suppose). I don't know how to accomplish that. With the District involved, plus two states, it's far more complicated jurisdiction-wise than in Mass. But I agree it would be much better if YY could somehow have a larger pool of native/ near-native speakers (ABCs).

I see what you're saying, but YY could attract many more native speakers from DC simply by adding a language dominant lottery, and taking page from the way MoCo manages its two Mandarin immersion programs. Our dialect-speaking friends in DC avoid the YY lottery and DCI (they buy houses in Upper NW).

MoCo hires dialect-speaking administrators to run its Mandarin programs partly for their ability to do outreach to the heritage community. Admins are ABCs who speak good Cantonese and Mandarin. Technically, a kid testing in to replace a drop-out has to get through an admissions interview in Mandarin. Actually, Chinese parents know that any major dialect will do, because admins understand that a dialect-speaking kid can catch up in the basic Mandarin taught in a matter of months, then soar ahead, boosting standards for Chinese.

Also, MoCo uses pullout groups to transition kids from other dialects to Mandarin. Native speakers really like this, motivating them to come. YY could set up pullout groups easily, because many of their teachers speak Cantonese (unbeknownst to most parents). In the Bay Area, several Mandarin immersion schools are so determined to attract native speakers that they teach all the kids Cantonese until 2nd grade - it's a sharp recruitment tool that gets the local Chinese community on board. All the kids are then transitioned from Cantonese to Mandarin in 3rd grade, and by middle school, almost every student's Mandarin is impressive. My cousin, who sends his kid to one of these programs, reports that hiring au pairs and tutors is uncommon in his school community.

I know that the Amherst founders sent study teams to both MoCo and San Fran before hiring admins, developing a curriculum, and advertising the school in the local community. A college friend is an administrator there.


Read 15:40. MCPS can do all this because it is a school district that is open to all - just not this program.

YY is legally its own school district and can't turn away anyone - which is what happens when you offer a preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A: Our kid's Chinese is great!

B: It's not. It sucks. My kids and I laugh about it.

A: Our neighbor is Chinese and she said it's excellent.

B: I lied about that.

A: But she gets A's and the teacher says she's doing fine!

B: The teacher lied.

A: The tutor says her tones are good.

B: Yeah, they lied, too.


A: ...

B: We're polite that way.

A (in Mandarin): Hey, kiddo, hey neighbor, how are things going for you at YY these days? What grade are you in this year?

B (in Mandarin): I am good.

A: I heard you went on a trip to China recently with your whole class. What did you see there? What did you do?

B: We went to China.

A: Did you visit the Forbidden City and the Terracotta Army? Did you ride on trains, take boats, take hikes, eat out, stay with a host family?

B: We ate apples.

A: Wow, what a fantastic trip you must have had. How wonderful for you. Your Chinese is so good now.

B: Thank you.

The first one is very funny. The second one sounds like my oldest son in English when adults talk to him

Yea, but your kid can say what he wants in English, when he feels like it. YY students are actually taught a lot of Chinese words they can't use because they don't practice speaking much. My bilingual first grader does no better than I do in speaking to YY kids.