Posts Tagged ‘Public Schools’

« Older Entries

Foreign Language Assistance Program on the chopping block: a major threat to K-12 language instruction in the US

Saturday, March 12th, 2011

The following is reprinted from the Asia Society website: http://asiasociety.org/education-learning/world-languages/-american-schools/language-funding-jeopardy

On Saturday, February 19, the House of Representatives passed HR1, the FY 2011 continuing budget resolution, which cuts funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP). FLAP is funded at $26.9 million and is the only source of federal education funding for K-12 foreign language innovation and best practices. On March 4th, the Senate Democratic Leadership introduced their version of a 7-month Continuing Resolution (CR) which would not cut FLAP, but would maintain it at the current levels.

Please call or email your Senators and urge them to support the continuation of funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program in 2011 and to oppose any resolution or budget proposal that would eliminate the funding of FLAP programs.

 

Read on for more information from the Asia Society.

In an effort to prevent government shut down, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a proposal, HR 1, which contains $100 billion in cuts from the President’s FY 2011 budget request. To reach that number the House cut billions through eliminations, reductions, and rescissions, including the elimination of the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) within the Department of Education.

FLAP is the only source of federal education funding for K-12 foreign language innovation and best practices. The $26.9 million in funding are being used to develop programs in critical languages to help support our economic and national security interests and prepare our graduates to compete in the 21st century. The US Department of Education awards, on average, between 25-35 FLAP grants each year to local education agencies and state education agencies.

Last Friday, March 4th, the Senate Democratic Leadership introduced their version of a seven-month Continuing Resolution which would maintain FLAP funding at the current levels. In contrast, the House-passed CR would cut $51 billion more than the Senate measure, with the vast majority of House cuts coming from non-defense spending. The Senate will vote on HR 1—the House proposal and the Democratic alternative, on Tuesday March 8th. Although neither is expected to get the 60 votes needed to advance, the votes will set the parameters for the upcoming budget negotiations and determine the final level for FLAP funding this year.

 

Need for Increased World Language Programs

Only 25 percent of elementary schools in the United States offered any world languages in 2008, down from 31 percent in 1997. American secondary schools offer more opportunities yet involvement is still low; currently, only half of all American high school students take even one year of a world language. Like many other academic advantages, language-learning opportunities are less available in urban schools than in suburban or private schools. For the past fifty years, school language choices have remained for the most part the same commonly taught European languages. Many FLAP grants aim to change this, focusing on programs that provide students the opportunity to learn a critical need foreign language such as Mandarin or Arabic.

The American language-education offerings contrast markedly with those of other countries where learning a second language is a higher priority. Twenty out of twenty-five industrialized countries start teaching world languages in grades K-5 and twenty-one of the thirty-one countries in the European Union require nine years of language study. It is not surprising that a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences warned, “The pervasive lack of knowledge of foreign cultures and languages threatens the security of the United States as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and produce an informed citizenry.”
To find out more about FLAP grants and where they have been awarded, please see: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/funding.html

 

Notes
Presentation by Shuhan Wang, Finding Solutions: Reforming World Language Teacher Supply System. STARTALK 2009 Teacher Certification Summit. December 2009. Accessed: http://startalk.umd.edu/2009/meetings/certification/
National Academy of Sciences, Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. (2007) Available: http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309100399/html

 

Discussion Question
What can we do to help save the FLAP program?

 

 

 

 

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Guest Blogs | 1 Comment »

José and Maria: A Story of Courage

Monday, March 7th, 2011

Lydia Breiseth is Manager of Colorín Colorado, a bilingual website serving parents and educators of English language learners based at public broadcasting station WETA in Washington, DC.  The following is a guest post inspired by her conversations with SIT filmmaker Ken Schneider and some of the subjects from Speaking In Tongues.

by Lydia Breiseth

We recently had the opportunity to interview Ken Schneider, co-director of Speaking in Tongues, for the bilingual English language learner (ELL) website Colorín Colorado. Ken provided a great behind-the-scenes glimpse of the film’s production process, as well as some thoughtful insight on attitudes towards dual-language education around the country.

One of the words that Ken used has stuck with me as I think about ELLs who enroll in dual-language programs: courage. Courage, he says, is what enabled José and Maria Patiño, a humble couple with little education, to put their son Jason in a two-way Spanish immersion program rather than send him to school in an English-only environment. In the film, José notes that it would be difficult for him and Maria if their son lost his Spanish as the lines of communication would be broken – but that’s not their only motivation in enrolling him in a dual-immersion program. Maria expresses her hopes her son will be “better prepared when he is older, to find a better job and have twice as many opportunities because he speaks two languages.”

For most families like the Patiños, the overwhelming pressure to learn English is communicated in the schools and by the mainstream media. We meet a Latino father in the film who believes that his daughter is speaking too much Spanish at her dual-language program; his impassioned plea at a parent meeting for his daughter to learn more English underscores the desire that so many immigrant parents share to see their children succeed in the U.S. It also underscores the limited access that parents have to information about the benefits of building strong language and literacy skills in the first language, and the many kinds of benefits (academic, social, emotional, and cultural) of effective dual-language programs.

For the families that don’t have access to that information when high-quality dual-language programs are offered in their school district , questions arise about which language to use at home. Sometimes Spanish-speaking parents stop reading to their children since they can’t read aloud in English. Parents may see their native language as an obstacle rather than an asset, sacrificing the family’s communication in the name of their child’s success and thus creating a rift as the child grows older and speaks less Spanish.

This is an important part of the conversation that Speaking in Tongues has inspired: What does it mean for our ELLs to succeed? Does it mean fluency in English, even if it’s at the expense of the native language (as we see in the case of Kelly’s parents)? Or does it mean giving our children the chance to become fully bi-literate and bilingual? While many of their counterparts understandably choose the former, the Patiños chose the latter. So far Jason’s prospects for a future with “twice as many opportunities” – and one in which his parents can play an active part – look bright. When the film was released in 2009, Jason was testing well-above grade level in English and Spanish, and he has identified the college he plans to attend.

José and Maria are parents whose courage we can learn from as we look to our rapidly-changing student population around the country. We need Jason to succeed, and we need José and Maria to be there alongside him every step of the way.

Special thanks to Dr. Karen Ford from the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education and Giselle Lundy-Ponce from the American Federation of Teachers for their contributions to this post.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Guest Blogs, Heritage Languages, Language Immersion, Multilingual Education | 7 Comments »

The Great Divide Between Federal Education Policy and Our National Need for Bilingual Citizens

Thursday, November 4th, 2010

by Wayne E. Wright
University of Texas at San Antonio

In the United States, there is a great divide at the federal level between education policy and the national need for bilingual citizens. The federal government is painfully aware of its lack of bilingual employees. The National Security Education Program (NSEP) (2001a) in an analysis of federal language needs—conducted the same year as the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—found that difficulty in hiring bilingual candidates at 80 national-security-related federal agencies led to adverse impacts on operations. The NSEP also found unmet language needs in other agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Customs Service, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. We also lack bilingual citizens to fulfill the myriad jobs in the service, business, and education sectors to interact with immigrants, international tourists, and other visitors, and to help ensure American success in international relations and global business.

Later in 2001, at the NSEP National Briefing on Language and National Security, speaker after speaker across federal agencies testified of the urgency to increase the country’s foreign language expertise. Richard Brecht, the Director of the National Foreign Language Center, testified, “the U.S. government’s language capabilities remain grossly inadequate. …. We need more linguists in more languages at higher levels of proficiency than ever before.” He recommended a long-term strategy which included the mandate that “government language schools recruit from the education system and the U.S. heritage communities linguistically competent professionals with existing skills that can be enhanced and specialized to meet required federal tasks.” (p. 20)

Regarding Brecht’s comment on the need to recruit from K-12 schools and from heritage language communities in the United States, Stephanie Van Reigersberg, a former recruiter of interpreters for the State Department, made a telling comment about her frustrations trying to recruit “heritage speakers” in languages of great need. She testified:

I think that as I look back on the last 30 years of testing interpreter candidates, it’s very clear to me that the attempt made in our private and public schools to annihilate any knowledge of the language spoken at home has been very successful, and I think we’ve got to overcome that. (p. 29)

Over a decade later, little progress has been made. Ironically, at a time when these hearings on the need for bilingual citizens were taking place, federal education policy moved in the opposite direction with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2000. Congress eliminated the Bilingual Education Act, and removed the word “bilingual” from the text of federal education law along with all recognitions of the individual and societal values of bilingualism.

While bilingual and other heritage language programs are still allowed, there is no longer any direct federal support or encouragement for these types of programs. Furthermore, NCLB’s focus on high-stakes testing as the sole measure of student achievement, and teacher and school quality, has discouraged schools from offering such programs (Wright, 2007, pp. 1-26). As the vast majority of language minority students are required to take these tests only in English, narrow test-preparation curriculum is focused on both the content and language of the test. When the top priority of schools is raising their average test scores to avoid harsh accountability penalties, school leaders may view heritage language programs as unnecessary and as diverting time and resources away from this goal.

When President Barack Obama was sworn into office in 2009, there was great hope among language minority advocates for change that would create more space for quality heritage language programs. The administration has appeared open and supportive of such programs. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in a May 2010 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, made the following comments:

We also support innovative approaches to language learning and proficiency assessment through our network of Language Resource Centers. Just one example is the National Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA. They sponsored their first international conference on heritage and community languages last February. The millions of heritage language speakers at varying levels of language proficiency in the U.S. represent a tremendous reserve of students and potential teachers who can put their skills to work improving our cultural understanding as well as our ability to compete, collaborate, preserve national security, and advance international peacekeeping efforts.

Statements such as these are a positive sign, as is the apparent support for bilingual education in an early draft of the Obama Administration’s proposals for the re-authorization of NCLB. However, the focus on accountability through high-stakes testing has not only remained, but has gotten worse. A key element of the administration’s school reform efforts through initiatives such as Race to the Top is tying teacher performance evaluation to their students’ test scores, thus making the stakes and the pressure to raise language minority student test scores higher than ever before.

As long as high-stakes tests remain the sole indicator of student achievement and school and teacher quality, there will be little incentive for schools to promote heritage language programs. A multiple-measurement system is needed where test scores are but one factor among many in determining school quality. Such a system could rectify the great divide at the federal level by recognizing and rewarding schools with quality heritage language programs—programs which ensure our nation will have the bilingual citizens it desperately needs.

Dr. Wayne E. Wright is an Associate Professor in the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Texas, San Antonio and the author of Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice (http://caslonpublishing.com/publication/foundations-teaching-english-language-learners/)

A lengthier critique by Dr. Wright on the effects of NCLB and its emphasis on testing for English Language Learners can be found here in the publication Educational Leadership.

REFERENCES

Duncan, A. (2010). International Engagement Through Education: Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan at the Council on Foreign Relations Meeting, May 26, 2010. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/05262010.html
National Security Education Program. (2001). Analysis of federal language needs. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s032201.html
National Security Education Program. (2002). National briefing on language and national security. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.ndu.edu/nsep/January16_Briefing.htm
Wright, W. E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-only and No Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 1-26.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Guest Blogs, Multilingual Education, Standardized Tests, Students, World Languages | No Comments »

Video Extras Offer More Food for Thought About Immersion Education

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

As a writer I know that plenty of what comes out of my pen (or keyboard) never sees the light of day. Sometimes I have to cut entire paragraphs or pages–even ones I really like–simply because they don’t serve the overall purpose of the story or article. In my case these get relegated to a file called “leftovers” and spend purgatory in my computer hoping to be called up another day. Sadly, I don’t think that day has come for any of my leftovers, but I still can’t bear to throw them away.

When people make a film, a similar thing happens, but on a much grander scale. Filmmakers spend hundreds of hours and many more dollars scouting locations, receiving permission, employing a crew, hiring equipment, and setting up lighting and sound gear to shoot many hours of footage, comparatively few minutes of which make it into the final version of their films. Those hours in the editing room letting go of great stuff that just won’t fit or that has to be sacrificed so other points can be made must be much more painful than my cutting and pasting into a ‘leftover’ file because that work represents so much effort and energy from so many people.

Fortunately, we now have the Internet, and some of those great scenes can now be seen and shared. Material that didn’t make the cut or caused the story to stray can now enhance viewers’ experience of the finished product–just like dvd extras do.  Speaking in Tongues filmmakers Marcia Jarmel and Ken Schneider have recently posted ten of these video extras on the Speaking in Tongues site.  (Make sure to use the scroll bar on the right of the screen so you can watch them all.)

The extras run the gamut from Mimi Met, Senior Research Associate at the National Foreign Language Center at the University of Maryland, discussing the importance of multilingualism in creating a more peaceful world to educator Laura Ringard expanding on the value of bilingualism for enhancing cognitive function. A Mandarin immersion kindergarten class joyfully sings a children’s song with their teacher, and a 3rd grade science class measures and discusses the progress of plants in their garden entirely in Cantonese. The extras also delve into more controversial topics such as the lag in standardized test scores of immersion students who are taught in the target language but tested in English before they have received as much instruction in that language as their monolingual peers. A touching episode on integration and immersion features a Spanish-speaking mother who decides to enroll her daughter in a Mandarin immersion program as well as insight from an African American mother and a school employee about how learning a second language can open new opportunities for children.

I hope you have a look and that these extras help answer some questions that Speaking in Tongues may have raised for you.  Spread the word to family and friends and let us know what you think about these videos in the comment section below.

And just for fun, check out this excellent audio extra in the form of a World in Words podcast from Public Radio International’s The World and Patrick Cox.  Cox devotes about half the show to Speaking in Tongues, interviewing Ken and Marcia as well as their younger son Jaden, who points out that it’s useful for he and his brother to be able to communicate in a language their parents can’t understand.  No doubt that’s true!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chinese, Language Immersion, Mandarin, Parents, Public Schools, Standardized Tests | 1 Comment »

Speaking in Tongues: A Film. A Challenge.

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

The following is a guest blog by Homa S. Tavangar, author of Growing up Global: Raising Children to Be At Home in the World. Look for a review of her book on this blog soon.

With all the talk of “Restoring Honor” and taking back our country, I’ve been thinking a lot about the changes in America that feel so threatening to some. We are living through revolutions in just about every sphere of life. Some revolutions can be terrific. Like the American Revolution. Or the technological revolution that enabled us to throw out our bulky typewriters for increasingly thin, fast and powerful computers. A revolution in learning and human relations needs to accompany the technology shift – and this is where it can get tricky. At a time when national borders mean less and less, and cultures interact on a daily basis, Americans can do better than complete their education as monolinguals with a weak grasp of geography, math, or how to interact across cultural lines.

Among the key skills for success in the 21st Century workforce is fluency in at least a second language. Many disagree with me on this point. Thirty-one U.S. states have passed “English-only” initiatives, in order to not be required to translate official documents and services. School districts (including where I live) have dropped foreign language instruction in elementary school and/or middle school due to budget shortfalls or because the results aren’t demonstrated on standardized tests. Meanwhile, the US Department of Homeland Security is clamoring for Americans fluent in the languages of other countries to aid intelligence work, the Department of Defense is pouring money into language programs, businesses are more likely to hire a bi-lingual candidate when offered a choice, and research (as well as common sense) indicates the younger the learner, the easier it is to acquire an additional language.

Yet, for many Americans, the idea of foreign language immersion falls somewhere between threatening and mysterious. Amidst this backdrop I was delighted to watch the new documentary film Speaking in Tongues, by veteran filmmakers Marcia Jarmel and Ken Schneider. The film humanizes the difficulties and triumphs of language learning by following four diverse students and their families. As we get to know the children we see the impact of speaking more than one language, from becoming closer to one’s heritage and the older generation that holds the traditions, to taking opportunities to live and travel abroad, to offering a chance to break out of a cycle of poverty.

The medium of film tells a story that no academic study could convey. I found myself rooting for Durrell, an African-American boy living in public housing who starts Kindergarten immersed in a Chinese classroom. And also for Jason, a Mexican-American boy, whose parents are not literate in any language, but who develops proper Spanish literacy while mastering English. Their determination through substantive lessons in Chinese or Spanish actually serves as their ticket to potential success in mainstream America – and beyond.

The filmmakers are clearly committed to this ideal. “We have seen the amazing transformation through language in our own home. Our sons are in their fourth and eighth year in a Chinese immersion program. They are equally comfortable in both English and Chinese” explains Ms. Jarmel. “As parents and as filmmakers, we wanted to pose the question: ‘In today’s world, is knowing English enough?’ and we invite the film’s audience to consider the answers with us and one another.”

Watching the film helped me better envision what an immersion classroom looks like, how a family can support the intellectual (and at times emotional) challenge their child is taking on, how a global mindset can be developed for a child from any economic condition, and more generally, how language can unite diverse peoples.

Speaking in Tongues is streaming with Spanish or Chinese subtitles on PBS Video (click here to watch it now) and is the first program to be carried in three languages (Spanish, Chinese, English) on the PBS video portal.  The film also has recently been broadcast on PBS and other cable TV stations throughout the United States. Check the film’s website here for schedules. If you don’t find your city on the schedule, call your PBS affiliate and ask for it. The website also offers information if you’d like to host a screening and community discussion, and more resources for language learning and global thinking.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the film, and your community’s experience on this issue, whether it’s with children learning a second language through immersion or simply dabbling, or the response to immigrant English language learners. Are you from one of the English-only states? How has this played out in practice? How have school budget pressures impacted programs? If school leaders don’t speak a second language is this affecting the way they decide on programs?

Whatever your experiences with language learning – keep talking! It will translate into a better community, and might even stir a revolution.

—-
Homa Sabet Tavangar is the author of Growing Up Global: Raising Children to Be At Home in the World, hailed a “Best New Parenting Book” by Scholastic Parent + Child, and a Best Education Book of the Decade. Between conversations with grandparents, Saturday school, high school courses, and their year-long AFS exchange student “sister,” her three daughters are learning how to order cupcakes in Persian, Spanish, French and Chinese.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Guest Blogs | No Comments »

Legislation Stands to Alter the Shape of Multilingual Education

Thursday, September 30th, 2010

It’s impossible to bring up any education-related topic without stirring up controversy.  Foreign language instruction in the public schools, whether immersion or another model, is certainly one of the hot-button issues.  Pair this debate with immigration reform, English-as-official-language, and school assessments, and you have a recipe for uproar.  Of course, that’s business as usual for politics, and these are some of the most pressing issues of the day, which is why legislation is popping up all over that could directly affect all of these things.

On the national level, H.R. 6036, or the Excellence and Innovation in Language Learning Act, cites a pervasive lack of foreign language capacity that threatens the security and economic well-being of the United States. Quietly introduced by Congressmen Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) on August 1, the last day of the 111th Congress, the bill would start language instruction in early childhood and ensure that students are able to build capacity throughout their elementary and secondary education until they gain proficiency.

The legislation proposes the U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce pool what they know about language and put together a synopsis of how to meet a variety of language-related needs.

The bill requests $200 million worth of funding each year, a pittance compared to the $2 billion the Committee on Economic Development estimates is lost each year by American businesses as a direct result of lacking cross-cultural skills. The military costs in Afghanistan total $200 million each day, and $200 million is nothing compared to the loss of human life should there be a serious national security breach due to lack of language capacity.

“I hope this bill will be considered as part of the reauthorization of ESEA,” said Tony Jackson, vice president at Asia Society.

The Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) is a Congressional statute that provides federal funding for American elementary and secondary schools. Originally enacted in 1965, ESEA is reauthorized every five years. Congress is currently preparing the next reauthorization, expected in 2011. You can take action here in support of H.R. 6036.

And U.S. Rep. Judy Chu, D, Calif. writes recently on The Hill’s Congress Blog, in support of HR 3753, the PRIDE Act (Providing Resouces to Improve Dual-language Education), currently in committee along with H.R. 6036.

Chu, a co-sponsor of the bill, is  a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, which is reviewing both bills, and serves on the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.  The daughter of Chinese immigrants and the first Chinese American woman to serve in the United States Congress, she also plans to introduce yet another language bill called the Global Languages Early Education (GLEE) Act in the near future to focus funds on early education, which studies conclude is the best path to fluency.

In California, SB 930, (Ducheny), which awaits the governor’s signature, would provide for the scores of English language learners who take the California Standards Test (STAR test) in their primary language to be included in their school’s progress assessment.

Presently students may take the test in their primary language, but the scores in that language (usually Spanish) are not included at all in the accountability system known as  API, a school’s Academic Performance Index or in the calculation of AYP, the measure of schools’ Adequate Yearly Progress, as assessed in accordance with the No Child Left Behind law.

Former English learners who have been reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) are not currently permitted to take the assessment in their native language, though it may be their stronger language for testing. In these cases the tests reflect neither an accurate assessment of what the student knows nor of their English language skills since no accommodations are made to control for linguistic complexities that may affect even “former” English language learners in understanding the test questions, nor is the test designed to measure English language acquisition.

A future assessment or accountability system without research-based accommodations to demonstrate validity, reliability and accurate results of what English learners know and can do would continue to provide a flawed system because teachers and schools (especially schools with significant numbers of English learners) must make education decisions based on data that inaccurately measures the academic performance of these students.

The STAR program will be up for reauthorization in 2013 according to California’s education code, and the emphasis on improved academic achievement of all students, including English learners, continues to be a priority of the federal government and thus every state. It is critical that California reauthorize the program with adjustments to its accountability and assessment system so that the scores of English language learners and the APIs and AYPs of entire schools and school districts present an accurate reflection of students’ academic capabilities regardless of language.

You can read more about SB 930 and follow the links to get involved here thanks to our friends at www.mulitlingualmania.com.

This is just a smattering of important legislation under consideration right now.  I have made no attempts to be comprehensive in my search for what’s going on, but I’d love to hear about things that may be happening in your city, state, or school district.  Please leave comments below.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Public Schools, Standardized Tests | No Comments »

The Elephant in the Classroom: English Language Development in an Immersion Setting

Friday, September 17th, 2010

One of the most common criticisms of immersion education in the U.S. is that it prioritizes second-language acquisition above English-language development.  While studies have shown that being bilingual actually improves one’s understanding of his native language, it is true that children being taught in a language immersion school do experience some lag in English language proficiency as compared to their English-only peers in the early years of school.  Most English-speaking parents who opt to put their kids in immersion programs understand and accept this, but when test scores start to roll in that are lower than hoped for, or as English instruction time–with non-native English speakers–increases as kids get older, English-speaking parents start scratching their heads.  Moreover, when parents already speak the target language but either speak no English or speak English as a second language, getting adequate English instruction for their kids becomes a bigger issue.

My older son entered kindergarten reading English fluently, and I didn’t worry about the kind of English instruction he was getting at school that first year.  Kindergarten, while more academic than it used to be, is still a place where kids are getting used to school. He was having fun and learning–especially Chinese!  I was just so glad that he was in an immersion environment so that he wasn’t bored all day being taught to do things he had already mastered.  First grade was harder to get through as the English Language Arts curriculum is still very much focused on early literacy skills.  I tried to work with his teachers, native Chinese speakers, about varying his English assignments so that he will be more challenged and engaged, but despite acknowledging my son’s advanced reading skills, they haven’t seemed very comfortable experimenting with the curriculum.

Now we are working through year three, and the English portion of the day is twice as long as it had been in kindergarten and first grade.  My son is still ahead of most of his peers, though the gap is certainly narrowing as other students develop their literacy skills.  I have never felt that the excellent Chinese teachers at my sons’ school lack the basic ability to teach English Language Arts at the elementary level, but it now occurs to me that being charged with helping to develop native literacy in children in one’s second language is a daunting task.  It is no wonder the teachers stick closely to the curriculum: getting creative could mean making mistakes and teaching those to the kids.  This is not a risk such truly professional teachers would be willing to make.  I am frustrated that my child is not getting the level of challenge he needs in English–and I continue to work with the teachers and administration on alternatives–but I am heartened by how well he is learning Chinese and remain thrilled that he has this opportunity.  The fact remains that while he may be bored during English at school, his father and I can help supplement this part of his education at home.

But what if we couldn’t?  The Mandarin immersion program at my kids’ school is now in its fifth year.  It started as an underenrolled program in 2006, and has steadily grown to the point that it now has a waiting list.  The vast majority of students in the first three years of the program were native English speakers with highly educated parents who understood the concept of immersion and the value of bilingualism.  With the success of the program and the  increased interest in Chinese over the last few years, the program has grown significantly.  More children from Chinese-speaking families are attending school with my younger son (who just entered kindergarten), and several kids in his class attended a local Mandarin-immersion preschool that did not exist a few years ago.  Native Chinese-speaking parents have expressed concern that, while their children will be getting an excellent Mandarin education, they might not get all they need in terms of English-language instruction.  And, unlike me, they are less confident about their own abilities to supplement English instruction outside of school.

And then there is the matter of standardized testing.  In second grade, the students’ English teacher reads the test questions for the California STAR test aloud to the students, and there is no written copy available to the students to read on their own.  Most immersion students in San Francisco, whether in Spanish, Korean, or Chinese, have an English teacher for whom English is a second language–a language that is sometimes spoken with a fairly heavy accent.  Could this affect the children’s performance on the tests?  It’s a valid question.  Moreover, kids for whom English is a second language are given the test in English, leading to scores that reflect their ability to understand English regardless of the subject mater being tested.  The fairness of this is continually called into question, and there is even legislation to offer English language learners the opportunity to test in their native language currently sitting on the (non-native English-speaking) governor’s desk.

Whether or not children receive their English instruction from a native speaker, research shows that immersion students not only catch up with their peers on standardized tests by fourth or fifth grade, they usually leap ahead of them (even in math) where standardized tests are concerned.  I have always explained away the minor errors in my sons’ teachers’ written English by letting my kids know that such mistakes are very common for people who didn’t learn their second language until they were much older.  “You are lucky,” I tell them, “to be learning Chinese when you are so young, because you will probably make fewer mistakes in Chinese when you grow up.”

I remain extraordinarily happy about my kids’ language immersion education.  I’d actually be more pleased if they could go to school 100% in Chinese and their English instruction were left entirely up to us, but I make this statement from a personal perspective.  I understand the importance of teaching English to all kids in the public schools, and I’m wondering what we could do in immersion programs to make the English teaching more effective for all the kids while still supporting our wonderful native-speaker teachers.  Please share your thoughts and ideas in the comment section below.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Language Immersion, Mandarin, Multilingual Education, Public Schools, Research, Standardized Tests, Students | 3 Comments »

Continuing Immersion Through Middle School: It’s Not Just About the Language

Monday, August 30th, 2010

After years of criticism from those who don’t get their top choices and others who prefer that their children have a secure spot at a neighborhood school, the San Francisco Unified School District has bowed to the pressure to redesign their controversial lottery system.  The new system, which places a higher priority on neighborhood schools at all levels, while still offering families some choice, was revealed on August 18–along with the proposal for which elementary schools will feed into which middle schools. Traffic on immersion parent email lists has been quite busy lately, and most of these parents are less than thrilled with the district’s proposals.

In a nutshell, the district plans to relocate established programs at some middle schools while establishing new immersion programs at underperforming schools and spreading the programs across a wider geographic area.  It’s complicated, to say the least, and it also raises the question for many families of whether or not to continue immersion beyond 5th grade.

According to the traditional plan for immersion, middle school instruction is reduced to two classes per day taught in the target language: a language arts class and social studies.  It is assumed that immersion students who have been in a K-5 program have a strong foundation in both languages by this point, but in order to maintain high-level competency and academic skills in the target language, instruction must continue, just as it does in the dominant language, in this case English. In high school, kids who have steadily followed a K-8 immersion track are eligible to take Advance Placement and 300-level college courses in the target language, exempting them from language requirements when they enroll in college and in many cases giving them a head-start on credits toward their bachelor’s degrees.

But by the time a child is 11 or 12 years old, language immersion is not the only factor to consider when choosing a school.  Consider this post on the SF Advocates for Multilingual Education list recently:

Middle school starts being less about the parents’ choice and more about the kids’ choice. We ended up going with immersion for middle school, but other factors we considered included:

- GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) designation: Our child was identified for GATE. Did we want to push for a school with GATE programming in place even if it wasn’t optimal for furthering her Spanish?

-Music and other extracurriculars: Our kid loved the flute and had a talent for it. Alas, the immersion school did not have a band where she could continue–and we had just finished paying off the flute we bought on an installment plan!

-Transportation: Whether or not your kid can ride public transit or walk home can affect choice. We ruled out one high-performing school in part because of location, though it did have a great band!

-After school programming: The ASP our daughter had attended since 1st grade had been a walk-to Boys & Girls Club, but a middle school far away made that no longer feasible.  We considered yet another school because of its proximity to the same B&G Club  where she would be able to continue in the ASP.

-How the kid is faring in the target language: Our elementary school did not use standards-based report cards at that time, and since no testing or assessments were done regularly in the target language, I felt VERY unclear in the fall of 5th grade whether this non-native speaker kid was strong enough in the target language to handle the demands of middle school academics. If a kid really is struggling in the target language in early 5th grade, a reasonable parent might want to cut their losses rather than have the kid continue!

-How the kid feels about it: My kid went through a period of being “sick of this” in 4th and early 5th grade but made the decision to continue. I think that was mostly a social decision in that her close friends were almost all continuing immersion at one particular middle school, and she wanted to stay with them. But if a kid’s best friends are going elsewhere, the kid might be better off not being forced to continue immersion if he/she has not really bought into the concept.

What do you think, parents?  How does continuing immersion rank as a priority in your middle school preferences? Are there other considerations families need to keep in mind?  Leave a comment below!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Guest Blogs, Language Immersion, Multilingual Education, Parents, Public Schools, Students | 4 Comments »

Lessons from Utah: How a ‘Red State’ is Building Thriving Language Immersion Programs

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

The following is part 1 of an email interview with Gregg Roberts, World Languages & Dual Immersion Specialist for the Utah State Office of Education.  Despite having designated English as the official language of the state and traditionally conservative politics, Utah has become a leader in language immersion education.  Roberts shares his insights and perspectives with us here.

In the conservative Salt Lake City newspaper, Deseret News you were recently quoted as saying “Our main goal is to mainstream immersion…to make that option available to all parents.” How would you characterize the overall reaction of parents and other Utah citizens to the news that Utah plans to “mainstream immersion”?

For the most part I would say it has been very enthusiastically received, especially in the business community, the state legislature, the educational establishment and amongst younger parents. The opposition is coming from the older generation, the less educated populace, and teacher unions who are worried about the jobs of underperforming monolingual teachers.

How long has elementary school language immersion been happening in Utah and what does the future hold for immersion education there?

The first elementary Spanish immersion programs in Utah began back in the early eighties. However, there has not been much growth until the State Legislature created the Utah Dual Immersion program in 2008 with Senate Bill 41. There will be an additional 14 new programs this year bringing the total to 51 for the 2010-11 school year. Our goal is to have 100 programs in five different languages by the 2014-15 school year, so we will need to add 12-14 programs each year to stay on pace. Utah currently has programs in Chinese, French, and Spanish, and will add German in 2011 and Russian in 2012.

Has Speaking in Tongues been useful in helping citizens to understand the goals and challenges of immersion education?

Speaking in Tongues has been extremely useful particularly with business, government and education leaders. We found the Chinese examples particularly useful, and worked with Patchworks Films on a special short video, Inside Immersion: A Chinese Example. However, one must remember that the politics in Utah are counter to one of the principal arguments in the film, English Only, which become problematic for us in Utah. The official language of the State of Utah is English; paradoxically immersion programs are flourishing all over this conservative state. In my opinion, Immersion education should NOT be linked to English only and immigration. Dual Immersion in Utah is NOT a red issue or a blue issue; it’s a purple issue meaning that it should be a non-partisan issue. It’s all about preparing our students for the 21st Century and not continuing to live in the 20th. Finally, in Utah, giving the gift of a second language to a child is all about economics!

What were the motivating factors prompting Utah’s decision to launch so many new immersion programs at one time?

Economic, Economic, Economic! Utah is a small state, so for our economic survival and the national security of our country we MUST educate students who are multilingual. In these tough budget times, the only reason why the State Legislature continues to fund this program, while all others have been cut or reduced, is because this program is tied directly to the future economic development of Utah.

What about the practical struggles of implementing these programs, for instance, how did you find so many teachers so quickly?

Yes, there have been struggles in finding qualified teachers. However, Utah has the highest percentage of native English speakers who can speak a second language so we already had some highly trained elementary teachers who were highly proficient in the immersion language. In addition, Utah has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with China, Spain, Mexico, France, and Taiwan, and these agreements are currently providing about 30 highly skilled elementary International Guest Teachers. In addition, Utah has two renowned universities, University of Utah and Brigham Young University, which are starting to produce elementary teachers who are either native speakers or highly proficient in the target language. Finally the Utah State Office of Education has created an outstanding Alternative Routes to Licensure (ARL) program that has produced some excellent native speaking or highly proficient in the target language teachers who have come from other professions.

What type of choice do parents have in selecting immersion (or not) for their children?

Utah is an open enrollment state, which means parents can chose the school their child attends. All of our Dual Immersion programs are strands that exist in the same school as traditional education since choice in education is extremely important in Utah. Each district participating in the program is permitted to set their enrollment policy and it differs from district to district. However, districts have been great about opening more Dual Immersion programs as the demand increases, thus it is all about meeting the needs of parents and students.

Utah is the first in the nation to develop standardized immersion curriculum. What sort of expertise was required for this curriculum development? How has it been received? Do you feel it could be improved?

Utah has brought in some of the finest immersion experts in the country to work hand-in-hand with our highly skilled curriculum development team. Please remember that the main premise of immersion education is to teach the core content areas through the medium of another language. Thus, our state-approved curriculum aligned to the Utah State Core has been warmly received. In addition, we have also created an enhanced literacy strand in each immersion language. Of course we feel our curriculum can always be improved and we are proud to be releasing our new and improved integrated curriculum (Science and Social Studies) in Chinese, French, and Spanish this year. Utah has agreed to move to the Common Core Standards so this year we will be working on aligning our Math and Language Arts curriculum to the Common Core.

I noticed that your programs are designed for 50/50 immersion meaning that students will spend half their day in English instruction and half their day in the target language. In other programs, such as San Francisco’s public schools, the model is to begin with 80-90% of a child’s instruction in the target language and gradually increase the amount of English instruction time as the children age. How will Utah’s programs change for the students from year to year, and what informed the decision to do 50/50 rather than 90/10 or 80/20?

I personally abhor anything but a 50/50 model for instructional and political reasons! In Utah we use a balanced two teacher model to clearly respect the separation of languages. In addition, our model is a K-12 model where students receive 50/50 instruction grades 1-6, two content course in the target language in grades 7-9, take the AP exam in grade 9, then enroll in university 300-level language courses in grades 10-12. Our goal when these students graduate from high school is to hand them off to universities or the workforce at the advanced level of proficiency in speaking, listening, reading and writing.

In June, representatives from Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, and North and South Carolina dropped in to take a peek at the state’s program. How do you feel about being a role model for immersion programs across the country?

We feel very honored and fortunate. I strongly believe if Utah can do this, so can (some) other states. Of course, all politics being local, and yes there are plenty of politics in immersion education, they may need to tweak our model to meet their own unique landscape.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chinese, Guest Blogs, Language Immersion, Multilingual Education, Parents, World Languages | No Comments »

Conversations with my Son on the Eve of Kindergarten

Monday, August 16th, 2010

My baby is starting kindergarten today. It’s the end of an era for our family, and I’ve been a little emotional.

He’s ready, I know.  And he’ll do fine.  But he’s still a bit nervous.

The fact that one of his best friends will be in his class is a huge comfort to all of us! And of course, we know the school and his teachers already and couldn’t be happier about either.

But the fact remains. My not-quite-five-year-old will spend 6 hours a day in a relatively unfamiliar environment being spoken to in a language he doesn’t understand.

He knows this. He’s not sure how he feels about it.

Last week the two of us sat down to watch Speaking in Tongues together. He took it in, despite his tender age. His brother’s school—now his school—is featured. There are lots of familiar faces. He certainly got a sneak preview of what his coming year might be like.

But when he watched the scene of the Cantonese kindergarten class being led through backpack protocol by their teacher on the first day, he froze.

“How do you feel about that?” I asked.

“Not good,” he said in a small voice.

I swallowed hard. This scene is always touching: tiny little kindergarteners in a big, unfamiliar school bewildered by the speech of the only adult in the room. But here I was imagining my own shy little guy—whose name begins with “A”, like Alex in the film, the first student to go before the class and be led through the backpack drill—going through the same thing. Ouch. Will he be able to handle it?

Please don’t let him be one of those kids who cries at drop-off!

“Will you be a teacher in my class sometimes?” he asked.

He’s been through two years of co-op preschool. That means he saw me or his dad in his classroom at least one morning a week for the three days per week he attended.

“Sometimes I’ll be there,” I said. “But I won’t really be a teacher, and I can’t come at first.”

Our kindergarten teachers welcome parent volunteering, but if we can’t speak Mandarin, our tasks are limited to cutting and stapling in the back of the room, and chaperoning the occasional field trip. Moreover, parents are asked not to be in the classroom at all for the first couple of weeks so the kids can get used to the routine.

I may end up with separation anxiety.

As we talked, I realized my little boy was under the impression he would be spending time with his older brother, entering second grade, while he was at school. It was hard to burst that bubble. A summer of a little too much togetherness has had my boys at each others’ throats more often than I care to think about lately, so the fact that my younger son was comforted in the knowledge that his brother would be around was heartwarming.

“You might see each other when you’re finishing lunch, and he’s starting lunch, or maybe sometimes in the halls, but that’s all,” I was forced to tell him. “You will be in your classroom with your teacher. He will be in a different classroom with his teacher.”

He took it in. Solemnly.

We watched that scene again. “See,” I said, “the teacher’s really nice, and she’s showing them what to do. If you just watch your teacher, you’ll figure it out. And you already know some Chinese!” I said encouragingly. The fact that this scene is in Cantonese, and my son’s day would be in Mandarin, made little difference at this point, I figured. Still, she said the word for backpack quite a few times…I had picked it up. And it sounded familiar. I found myself hoping it was a cognate!

That evening at dinner I asked my older son “So, how do you say backpack in Mandarin?”

“Shi bao! I’ve told you a million times!”

Shrugging off the derision of my seven-year-old, I turned to my younger son. “See. It’s the same!” I told him. “Shi bao! You already know backpack!”

He will be ok. At least for the first day…

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chinese, Language Immersion, Mandarin, Multilingual Education, Parents, Public Schools, Students | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries