Accountability in language immersion programs is hard. For starters, often, there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Parents who have the best interests of their children's education at heart either 1) may not understand what they have sacrificed for "foreign" language acquisition, or 2) may not know what questions to ask the professionals (teachers, administrators) in order to keep the dialogue alive and well. It's hard to know what is being taught when you don't understand the language. And trust...? Well, it's a tough line to walk when you want to be respectful of your teachers.
So what is accountability, anyway? As a concept, simply put - from the teaching side, not the testing or homework or learning outcomes (student accountability) side - it is to be assured that what is set as a goal to be taught is, in fact, actually taught.
Then there is the goal-setting, itself. So let's start there.
What is your immersion program saying that it is trying to do? Many Mandarin Immersion programs are saying that they are "full-time" or even 50/50 "dual" immersion. Unfortunately, they are faced with a conundrum. What content to teach?
Some teachers believe that since so many kids who don't understand the "foreign" language, then they need to be taught "the basics." Colors, counting, how are you, I am fine, what did you do today, I like you, I like to eat pizza, where is the bathroom, etc.
Then, to what extent does this "basic" content align with "what you learn in kindergarten"? Therein lies the conundrum. Immersion programs that are cropping up in public schools (and I've read that Spanish programs are facing this battle, as well) are required to teach the normal or regular school curriculum in this "foreign" language. In this case, Mandarin. But either it is because of the District leadership or the teachers, themselves (or both), then the result may not be Content Standards Aligned, or the regular education content, but instead, the content that is taught is following a "foreign language model." (Just look at any Chinese-as-a-foreign-language textbook, whether for high school or college, and you will get the drift of what this content "ladder" or pathway looks like.)
In other words, the 50% or 80% of your child's day might be spent mastering Tourist Language.
In the first MI program we attended, I soon found out that the majority of the parents were fine with this level of accomplishment. They thought that this was what was supposed to be accomplished, and then their kids would go on to be able to accomplish more during middle and high school with this slate of "the basics" as the foundation.
This goes back to what I posted about critical thinking. Your kid will not develop critical thinking skills in Mandarin if s/he is not engaged in material that actually requires such a level of engagement. If your child is taught how to make dumplings and say they like dumplings, then that is all they will be able to say and think in Mandarin. If your child is only taught to say Chinese New Year terms, then that is all s/he will be able to converse about when it's time to talk to anyone you grab off the street who speaks Mandarin. If you want to even call that "conversation"...
Sadly, my child experienced a dearth of engaging school topics during most of First Grade and going into 2nd grade. I watched with sadness and frustration at the classes ahead of us. I looked at the curriculum that the teachers were using and not using. None of it added up to an expectation of mastery of serious school content. As one parent of a 4th grader (who was from a Toisin background) said to me, trying to be polite and accommodating about what was happening at the school, "I'm just not sure that 'peacock' should be considered essential vocabulary at this stage."
Why, yes, indeed. That about sums it up. Meanwhile, learning the Monkey King Stories is great and truly essential cultural engagement. But if your teachers are not teaching the frameworks of inquiry for topics in Science and Social Studies, as they are supposed to do under a truly full-time immersion program, and as they would normally do if they were teaching 100% of the time in English, then you are in a troubled landscape for accountability.
Immigrant Chinese parents then get confused by this curriculum content ladder (or lack of content), thinking that this is what people have meant when they say American education as a whole is far behind other parts of the world; or, these parents fall for the line that kids will "catch up" later when the instruction is leveled at 50/50. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I know plenty of parents who had to play "catch up" at later stages, but it was not automatic. It took immense heavy lifting, and potential sacrifice of the "foreign language" gains. Some of our former peers have given up altogether and gone straight all-English. The sacrifice and the paucity of resources to keep all this afloat was too much.
No, the problem is that your program hasn't done a good job of content development. In fact, you could simply say, "You have a bad program." Or, "no program" at all.
On the other hand, if your school's model is only supposed to accomplish this level of Tourist Language, then you should wonder if "full time" is necessary. It's not. There are plenty of non-Chinese who began studying at this level, and with hard work and dedication, they became very fluent at a conversational level. Even enough to consume the daily news reports. And some prominent figures have gone on to leadership posts in politics and diplomacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment