An on-the-ground horror story about counting characters...

The first MI program we were in, we found out by the end of K that the number of characters on the slate for the kids to "master" was 500.

Okay, this was ridiculous. At first, given that 2,000 is a pretty good modest goal for K-12, as it is, given everything else you want to achieve, like English and math, science, history, rhetoric, physics, etc. Sure, then it sounded reasonable, at first.

Then, we found out the horrible truth. What they meant by 500 characters was, in fact, all there was. The tests were all about solely memorizing these characters and writing them on a blank page.

I thought that perhaps this group of teachers had "master-minded" some new approach, some innovative, new methodology that was designed to be specifically in line with the District's specific curriculum that was, on paper, supposed to be aligned with the State Content Standards.

No such luck.

The extent to which the kids were consuming content, learning vocabulary with these characters, learning how to read and write at even a bare-bones basic level... All this was in question and had no standards or accountability around it. In fact, in some classrooms, they barely had books of meaningful academic content, let alone the poor teachers having any curriculum or lesson plans that connected one to another and made sense in any coherent fashion. Some teachers wanted to use one textbook series, others wanted to use yet another. Some teachers, despite what the District had agreed upon, went ahead and brought in their own books because they insisted that they had to "teach to the students" who were in front of them. While that might be true in some senses, the end result was chaos.

Another example this horror played out in real time was the repeat of teaching the Butterfly Life Cycle for science content at 2nd grade as a means of meeting the curriculum standard for reproductive cycles for animals. This sounds great on the surface, right? Except the kids already did this for kindergarten and the progression of skills expected with this 2nd grade unit was no more advanced, still just about illustration, coloring and passive vocabulary engagement. No requirement to extend this concept to other types of animals, no extension of writing, no expectation that they should "master" writing these characters, let alone trying to use the so-called "taught" vocabulary in another context in order to ensure some level of "mastery."

I think I've mentioned this in the blog prior, but during the previous year, I had been shown a full unit for First Grade at one of the Cantonese schools, except it was in Traditional text. This was not the same curriculum that was being used at our MI school. I was part of a group of parents who got confirmation from some of the District officials, themselves, that the curriculum for MI simply didn't exist beyond the form we had seen it used, a very "baby" level of teaching continuing beyond kindergarten and into First through Fourth grades.

It was "news" to these District officials that they ought to just use the same stuff from the Cantonese programs. I hope that has played out. But I hear trickles that it hasn't. Meanwhile, I was not going to stick around to find out.

So in a weird and very convoluted way, the character-count discussion, at the very least, shined a light on many issues, one of which was to not count characters, but also to illustrate how and why things were so bad. I'm afraid, however, that many parents got lost in the true meanings and learning needed to be gained from these discussions because they perceived the entire matter as 2 camps: one for and another against character counting.

This created yet another set of complex mythologies that needed to be undone... But when you are a busy parent trying to keep up with your own child's pace of development, it is so hard to understand these things. I can understand why so many parents of all backgrounds were confused by this discussion. No doubt, newer parents will continue to be confused. And so much about MI has been filled with some wrong people trying to take control of the situation to protect their own very niche interests... Well, now you have a new voice, here. You can believe who you want. But I'm not backing down. And I can point to my own success in the language as proof. I can be modest about it. I can say, well, I haven't achieved much, especially in the face of any native-speaking Chinese parent who is paying attention and is hands-on with their kids' development in their Mandarin. But I must achieve at least what my parents achieved, albeit with my now much lower skills than theirs. And I am absolutely confident that I know far more than any English-only parent. I got my kid to what I think a really great level, right now. We have far more to go. I know that. But I also know that my child is doing much better than most of her peers. For some, they simply don't care. But for those who really do want a better path, there is a better path available to you.