"Whole Child" vs. "Foreign Language Model" and ACTFL

As I have done throughout this blog, I have been trying to dispel myths about Mandarin Immersion programs and what is accomplished or not accomplished for a kid who goes through it.

I've ranted about this notion in different ways, but another way to present this Big Picture notion occurred to me recently.

A lot has been written about "whole child" learning. Oddly enough, in fact, American parents who tend to sign up for Mandarin Immersion seem to be strong proponents of this "whole child" learning. The irony, then, is why they simultaneously become proponents of Mandarin language curricula that is completely the opposite of whole child learning...

I don't understand it. But for future parents out there - this is something to look out for.

Herein lies my old problems with the ACTFL standards. ACTFL is not about whole child learning. Look at the content! ACTFL is about an old-school way of designing "Foreign Language" learning, as has been historically done in the United States.

For some, the battle of "accomplishment" inside the ACTFL standards seem to mean something. But look at the long history of those of us who went through the American system of foreign language education. It's a very long history and far too many (if they're being honest) are still alive to tell the tale - i.e., not much was learned that could survive real, live, active language. You hit the streets of Paris or Berlin, and you found that you could barely make heads or tails of what someone was saying to you.

Mandarin language education in America is still dialing back from that set up, too. And the impact upon kids in early elementary programs can be devastating.

So look at your school's curriculum with this kind of scrutiny. Everything that is taught in English + Everything that is taught in Mandarin should equal (=) a whole curriculum for a whole child.

But if that is not the case, and you find that 50% of your day is the equivalent of 1) content that is not complementary to the rest of what is happening in English, and 2) content reflects a severely lower grade level than where your child is at, then you have a serious problem. Your child is spending 50% of his/her day "accomplishing" content that does not, in fact, constitute a whole child education.

If you take a faux quantitative framework to the situation: It would be half the day, if what happens in English is up to par. And then it would be some kind of percentage that you could count, perhaps as 25% at best. So your 100% kid gets a 75% education, at best. If even. But if you add in your child's ability to absorb and master the content... then you are probably just getting 50% of the education that kids in "regular" American programs would be getting.

That is a severe deficit. I wouldn't call that "whole" in any way shape or form.

Can any of this be "made up for" in the after school hours? Yes, you then have to figure out how to do that.

ACTFL content was never designed with developmental age issues in mind. It began for college-level students. Dialing it backward into high school education is one thing, but dialing it further back into middle school and elementary education... I used to accept it as an interesting, giant experiment back when we were in K. Now at 4th grade, having witnessed all the developmental changes in my child, I see this affair as fantastically risky. I'm not sure I would recommend it to others with the kind of enthusiasm as I did before. And I wasn't even one of the blind ones who are going around saying Mandarin Immersion is like some magical elixir to their education woes. No way. But I look back and see that someone, whoever it was who decided that ACTFL could be used for K-8 education, they have severely damaged children all over from having the best they could get.

The only way I see it being salvaged, at the moment, is that you must have a curriculum in English that is at least one grade, if not two, above normal. And that gets tricky to design and implement. But whole child?

I am constantly tweaking my child's education. Constantly. But I can listen to and read the content she is being given in Mandarin/Chinese. And I can comprehend what is being delivered in English. So I can see the gaps and then fill them. But yes, I get it about the parents who cannot understand one of the languages. Which is why I am constantly mystified by the various claims by non-Chinese proficient parents.

You do have a crisis of whole child learning on your hands. But the crisis is not what you think it is. The crisis comes from having pushed for an "easier" slate of content in Mandarin, using ACTFL as your guide. It also comes from using ACTFL to align and integrate with the curriculum that happens in English. That leaves you scrambling for the rest of what you need for your "whole child" needs.

The superior way to handle this is to do what Utah is doing. Simply divide the content in half. Then, make up the "difference" by repeating some of the content in both languages. Then, make up further differences with additional staff. You must have classroom assistants. Then, last step, make up the difference in after school. Kids who are floundering during class are further supported during after school. This is not hard.

What it is, however, is political. That is another issue all together. Some parents don't want to be told that their kid needs help. Some parents don't want their kid to be in school but to be out playing soccer, instead. These parents don't believe that their kids need help because they simply don't understand the language. This inability to comprehend leads them to literally ignore what is happening.

And then they go on about "whole child learning"... Bizarre. Bizarre, indeed.

New trick for Book Reports - Using the computer for essay writing

At 4th grade, I am using a new trick for getting home-based book reports done: use the computer.

My child already uses Google Docs as a way to submit writing assignments for school. She has become quite adept at this and even likes to share "secret" notes with her friends. Of course, the school keeps the accounts secure for all the kids. Their ID's are not connected to an active email account. The teachers are able to check in on any document that is created at any time.

So home-based book report assignments for Chinese are now on the computer, instead of being hand written. While this is a bit of a sacrifice, I am going to live with it.

Writing practice is still being supported via the ZW textbooks and in-school homework. But we can continue to drive reading comprehension and essay writing skills (which are still so critical to developing thinking skills) by allowing for the novelty of being on the computer.

My goal is to keep my child reading more stories and responding to them through writing. Given her increased impatience with how hard Chinese is compared to English, this is my latest pivot. I can't blame her - using pinyin is pretty awesome and efficient.

I do know there is some sacrifice, here. But I want to drive continued vocabulary acquisition through reading, which is vital but not so easy when you don't exist in a Chinese-speaking world.