Menlo Park school board rejects Mandarin school proposal

My son attended Chinese American International school for 9 years. It was a great experience and it prepared him for college. The Mandarin immersion part, however, was of little value. Every Chinese American family at C.A.S.E. spoke perfect English; AND, most Chinese Americans in San Francisco speak English. So unless your kid wants to move to China (not likely) - better to focus on S.T.E.M.

A recent study at UCLA showed that California is among the worst states in the nation for segregation in its schools. In addition, San Mateo County already includes one of the worst cities in the state for achieving integration. Serious consideration must be given to attempts to further exacerbate the issue by creating separate educational facilities that isolate demographics groups -- whether that segregation occurs by intent or consequence. Brown vs. the Board of Education may make the persistent debate about the financial and class size implications of this charter effort moot.

My husband and I and our two children lived in Shanghai for seven years and I enjoyed studying Mandarin while I was there. but I do not support a charter school in our small school district. Observing this debate has convinced me that the charter school law needs to be amended. Charter schools should not be used by small groups of parents to thwart the rational educational planning efforts of local school districts in order to implement the priorities of a few parents. All of us have educational goals for our children, be they STEM, the arts, or foreign language. However, a public school district has an obligation to devise a program that meets the needs of all the children in the district while providing an excellent education. Our school district has done a good job and our district boasts high ratings and satisfied taxpayers. If a parent’s particular educational priority is not met in the public school system, that parent has the option to enroll in a private school emphasizing STEM, the arts, foreign language, or the priority of their choice.

Hi Charles,

Did you send your child to Chinese American International School so he could speak Chinese to the local Chinese or Chinese-American population? Sure reads like it. The benefits of language goes to the learner, and it doesn't matter if the ethnically Chinese kids speak good English or not. That's irrelevant.

While it's not obvious, your child probably already has benefitted cognitively and neurologically from his years learning Mandarin. It's well-researched, and there are studies that show that these benefits also help in the later years for delaying alzheimers. Your son probably also has a better understanding of other perspectives, viewpoints and cultures, which are great side effects of immersion education.

Sure, you want him to be able to use the language on a more regular basis, but whether he has the chance to use that matters more in the day to day experience and opportunities presented to him. As he is still young and in college, his adult life has yet to begin. As he starts out in the beginning part of his career, it's more important to have technical skills but as he moves up in the career ladder soft skills such as language become more important.

A while back an African-American elementary school kid who was in a Mandarin immersion program in SF accompanied Obama on a diplomatic trip to China because he possessed the right skill set to be a representative of the country and a cultural bridge. It was very impressive. That could have been your son. Anecdotally I have also heard stories from families whose kids aren't Chinese who have taken vacations to a Chinese-speaking country in which the Mandarin speaking child takes the rein and becomes a tour guide for the family as they navigate through their trip. In any type of negotiations, the more info you know, the better off you are. Even if everyone you are speaking to can speak English, if you can understand what others are saying in their native language, it gives you an advantage and more likelihood of having more levers at your disposal. In these types of situations, you don't necessarily know when your latent skill set will come into play, but by the time you realize you need it, it's too late to acquire the skills right away if you didn't already possess them.

Language acquisition is a gift with a long payback period and to suggest that at the early age of 18 or 20 that there's insufficient payback is to not look at the bigger picture of all the benefits that can accrue along the way in one's lifetime, before your son's had a chance to step into his adult life. You never know when and how a life skill such as a language will come into play. It's only possible to make the connections looking backwards, so it's way too early to tell what he will get out of his immersion experience and by the time you do realize it, it might not be for many more years and by then you won't be able to report back on the almanac with an update. Be patient.

Dear Mandarin Immersion Fans,

I'm no fan of our cliquey and conformist school board, but I applaud this rational decision.

You folks often cite the potential career benefits trumpeting that the "21st Century is China's Century". While I believe this is a ridiculous assumption to begin with, support for an immersion program should not be predicated on the "capital benefits" accrued to the student. All of the many other cognitive, social, and cultural benefits can be accrued simply by offering such foreign language instruction.

Just leave it alone already.

You have several easy solutions available to you: send your kid to private school, move to one of many culturally immersive Chinatowns in this country, or move to China. If those options are not convenient or they are economically infeasible for you, then you understand EXACTLY why the vast majority of MPCSD parents do not want Mandarin immersion.

immersion fan:

the real debate and issue here is not on the merits of either mandarin immersion specifically, or foreign language immersion generally. (generally, few will disagree on the merits of immersion.)

rather, the real debate and issue here is the ability and wisdom for a small group to use california's (flawed) charter school law to foist on the mpcsd community as a whole an immersion charter school -- no matter the quality/sustainability/legality of the proposed charter, and no matter the adverse impact of the proposed charter on the mpcsd community as a whole.

enough_already, why so prickly? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? I don't see how what I wrote to Charles to be patient about payback from immersion is controversial and requires this amount of vitriol from you. Aside from the benefits of delaying Alzheimer's, all the rest is pertinent to all immersion programs, not just to Mandarin. Is it really necessary to tell me to move my family to another country or to an ethnic ghetto just because I'm a fan of language immersion? Would you have told other people to move to Mexico or another country if we were writing about Spanish? Lighten up. Sheesh. And what's the deal with "you people"?

Hip hip hooray! This was definitely the right decision. As MPCSD Parent2 said, the problem is not Mandarin, or language immersion broadly, or STEM, or Waldorf-style, or any other educational style/approach/focus. The problem was that they wanted a CHARTER school. This would have disrupted the MPCSD community (literally displace children for whom this is their neighborhood school) to have what amounts to a publicly-funded private school for a very small, self-selected group. Simply ridiculous in a place like Menlo Park. The whole point of Charters was to give options to students in severely under-performing districts more choice. It was not meant for private schools masked as and partially funded by public money.

Congratulations and thanks to the MP School Board on putting forth a sound decision on this issue. Our district has plenty of other priorities to consider that benefit the broader student body and population. This issue has already taken too much of their valuable time with 300+ pages of paid "justification" coming from a parent contingent with many members outside of our community. There are other options, like private schools, that can provide an immersion program. This smacks of single interest parents trying to take advantage of a loop hole to "procure" already tight funding and resources that are being put to good use by our great schools. This issue should be put to rest.

My two children are trilingual and the older one attends Spanish immersion program. Obviously, we see its benefit and support multi language education but we are keenly aware that it is not for everyone. First and foremost, every kid learns things differently – while some children thrive in multilingual setting, some children learn much better in single language setting. Second, the parents must be committed to their educational choice by providing opportunities to continue learning in both languages outside of school setting regardless of their ability to speak those languages. We cannot expect our kids to be fluent and fully literate in both languages just because they attend a bilingual program. Again, this makes immersion program/school not suitable for every family.

We are extremely fortunate that our district supports language immersion programs and that my kids are able to attend one. However, because language immersion programs/schools are specialized and serve some not all children in the district, they must be founded on a basis of strong support from the greater community. Otherwise, they should not be part of the public school system. I wholeheartedly agree with Beth’s comment on need to amend charter school law. Throughout the process, I felt that this petition was rushed to move forward without a full deliberation or support of the community at this time. As article noted, the charter school “could still end up operating” despite of great concerns expressed and shared by many residents. If this charter school were allowed to be established as it stands, a bitter divide between two sides of the community is likely to remain unaddressed. That is not something we want in our community.

If the charter folks could prove they could fill the program with a racially balanced set of students that mirror the racial balance of the MPCSD community AND it could show that they could fill the enrollment goals with such a balance AND maintain it AND comply with the Tinsley settlement, then they could probably fix the large number of additional problems that the Districts findings found with the petition. BUT the data suggest they can never do this. This PROVES the underlying flaw with the charter, it is a special interest program for a select group of students and does NOT improve the quality OR choice available to the community as a whole.

If if if, and if they had the patience to go through a normal charter establishment process, then maybe, but of course, they do not have the patience because again, this is about THEIR 5 and 6 y/o kids AND NOT ABOUT the good of the district...

If if and buts were ice cream and nuts, every day would be a holiday (and every special interest group could have their own charter school) :)

I applaud the effort to offer families the opportunity for their children to learn Mandarin.

but this strikes me as the wrong way to do it. Why not just model it after the existing Spanish Immersion program at Encinal? Maybe 1 or 2 of the classrooms (dependent on demand) at each grade level at Oak Knoll or Laurel is taught in Mandarin?

I think this debate raises another issue: which foreign languages should the district offer?

We have one immersion program: Spanish. Why Spanish? Is that the preferred language for most of the parents in the district? Was some sort of study commissioned that showed that Spanish is the most valuable language to learn? Is it the easiest one to find teachers for?

Everyone has their own opinion on this issue but, even though Spanish is my one and only second language, I would not put it in the top 3 on a list of the most important languages to learn.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this; but here is a very interesting piece about which second language to learn in The Economist:

Web Link

I have been watching in horror the intimidation and combative tone during this "debate" (mostly on NextDoor). In all honesty, some of the hate and fear mongering scared me to the point I stayed silent on the issue. This make me very sad as I am generally a fan of language immersion and learning so I wanted to better understand the impact of the proposed school but it did not feel safe to discuss in an open way. I wonder if that was the case of others as well... I was deeply troubled by the tone of the conversation.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire so I simply ask that we all remember that we are all part of a community. And while we may not agree with everyone's opinions, we need to respect each other. I trust both sides are trying to "do the right thing". I just want to urge everyone to keep the conversation civil.

We live in a great city and I want to ensure that we stay a warm and inviting place to a diverse point of views, people and interests.

I certainly hope Ms. Cunningham, who appears to be a bright, reasonable person, in concert with the rest of the charter school backers, now realize, with zero doubt, that the MPCSD school district is the wrong place for a language immersion charter school.

If the charter backers are still interested in starting a new school rather than having their children attend one of the numerous programs in the Bay Area, I implore them to regroup and pursue a County Charter or look for an underperforming district who might welcome the program.

The damage this group has already done to the 2,900 children currently enrolled in our awesome district is incalculable. Putting asside the tens of thousands of dollars wasted on legal fees, the travesty is the hundreds of hours the leadership team, and the school board have needed to devote to this issue, rather than focus on the major issues that impact the quality of education for our entire community of children.

Ms. Cunningham and backers, the reasonable people in our community realize it was not your intent to do any harm, but unfortunately that's what has happened. Please, please do not appeal and cause further damage to our District. Thank you!

concerned neighbor:

yes, everyone wants "keep the conversation civil," and for the most part, everyone has "ke[pt] the conversation civil."

moreover, i think it is important to note that there is an important difference between, on the one hand, "intimidation,... hate and fear mongering" -- DEFINITELY NOT OK, and, on the other hand, expressing strong views that may even come across in a "combative tone" -- THIS IS TO BE EXPECTED, ARGUABLY EVEN EMBRACED, WHEN THERE IS A CLEAR DIVIDE ON AN ISSUE.

i will (again) join the chorus in saying that the former is not acceptable.

but i also believe that very little of that unacceptable behavior has actually occurred -- at least on the numerous public forums i have seen related to mmics.

instead, what i have seen is too many instance where several postings with a strong view or a "combative tone" are clumped together with a few posting reflecting "intimidation... hate and fear mongering," and then all of the postings are collectively pointed to as evidence of:
why people cannot really speak their mind;
why people cannot sign the charter petition;
etc.
on nextdoor and mmics' newsletter this has been denominated "adult bullying" / "bullying."

in fact, that same narrative was trotted out (again) at last night's hearing -- "people are afraid to sign the petition..." (nicely coupled with "we know a charter is a change, and people are always afraid of change...").

PLEASE let's not let the main event (propriety of the proposed charter) be overshadowed by a sideshow (a FEW bad actors and disproportionate focus in response to those bad actors).

if someone questions motive, provides inaccurate information, or even uses a "combative tone," then the best response is to clarify motive, provide accurate information, and (perhaps) use a calm tone.

This was an excellent decision. Group tried an end run and lost. Good for the school board!!

Thank you, School Board, for a wise decision that promotes the good of all our students.

MPCSD Parent2,

I agree that the vast majority of the postings (and to be specific on NextDoor) did not cross the line into intimidation and hate mail. There were, however, a marked few that were horrific. And how the community responded or didn't respond to them is of gravest concern. The below posting was the worst of the postings:

"You really want to push this through and have your kids be pariah at whatever facility you steal resources from. You have distracted the resources and energy of an entire wonderful public school community. How f'ing selfish!!! Your neighbors are watching...and hoping you move somewhere else.” ; “Lets start putting pressure directly on the MP families that are supporting this. That may not be a “politically correct” statement, but that is where the rubber meets the road. Let the people know they will have a “target on their back” if they push this through.

Though this quote absolutely does not reflect the general tone of the conversation, it was not immediately and strongly condemned by both "sides". Instead it was glossed over as anti-proponents continued to argue against the proposal. I am not writing this in support of either side but rather to bring light to the issue of intimidating and hateful postings.

I am saddened and embarrassed by this kind of talk coming from the community where I live and I argue for it to stop because our public discourse defines us and create our shared environment. These kinds of threats should be strongly collectively condemned no matter our political stance.

Concerned Neighbor

Since I have been accused elsewhere of bullying let me comment. I did and do question the motives of the petitioners, and did call the effort aggressive, self serving and selfish.

I never coerced, threatened or anything that would be bullying, yet I was called a bully...

Yes, a few folks crossed the line, BUT, at the end of the day, I think the discussion was healthy and constructive, and very data driven. I don't think the petitioners did themselves any favors by lumping all of the dissenting voices together as bullies. The facts are that a vast majority of the community was and is against this, and the petition did not pass the requirements.

Again, I will say what I said at the board meeting, I implore the petitioners to work with the community and the district to bring more World language options to ALL, not a select few, and hope they do not pursue costly legal avenues to pursue this effort...

concerned parent (and others):

was the "how f'ing selfish!!!...put a target on their back" message actually originally posted in a public forum?

i ask b/c the only place i have seen the message posted on a public forum was as part of mmcis's (carol cunningham's) recent Nov. 9th posting on nextdoor.

in response to that Nov. 9th posting (as well as previously when the intimidating message was verbally recounted at the Oct 14th mpcsd board meeting), there was prompt and widespread community reaction to:

(1) say such intimidation is not acceptable:

--" I detest the hateful comments directed your way...you are absolutely correct…adult bullying is unacceptable...";
--"I am embarrassed for our community that you have received any such threats...It is unacceptable";
--"...I am sorry to hear that you have received personal attacks and I agree whole-heartedly that we should be able to discuss the issues without resorting to personal attacks...";
--"...I don't think name calling is ever okay ...";
--"...MMICS opponents have been (and are) vocal in saying that such inappropriate comments are not acceptable..."
--"I'm just as upset as you are to hear that some people have taken it to an inappropriate level"

AND

(2) also to say that a few bad actors and disproportionate focus in response to those bad actors should not detract from the real debate:

--"You claim that you want to stick to the facts and issues, but you spend more than half of your post seeking to create a false impression of the vast majority of people who have raised legitimate challenges to MMICS...your allegations of "bullying" appear to be an instance of the tail wagging the dog.";
--"Carol you must take note that multiple people are interpreting your position via your email as being hypocritical...I don't condone illegal or explicit aggressive activity but there is a difference between that and those that don't agree with you or like your tone"

in sum, as far as i've seen, our community as as whole did "immediately and strongly condemn[]" such inappropriate messages, and did not "gloss" over them -- even if they were not specifically called out in each and every response.

PS I recognize that the original message may have been posted in a public forum but removed b/c of being flagged as inappropriate content.

Dear Immersion Fan,

Making a case for immersion is not what this debate is about. This debate is about if a Mandarin Immersion program is what this MPCSD community needs and wants. I clear don't think you can make a case that it "wants" it. As far as "needs" it, ENOUGH ALREADY was simply stating that "support for an immersion program should not be predicated on the "capital benefits" accrued to the student." I find it hard to argue with that.

Mandarin, in particular, is simply not the language of choice in this community. It's not that the community doesn't value world languages, nor are they against Mandarin speakers. Let's be clear. The language of Mandarin is not of interest to this community. Why do you keep pushing it as if it's about the benefits of bilingualism? That is not the issue. Why are you offended when ENOUGH ALREADY suggests that you take your children somewhere else if you want them to speak Mandarin? If a parent wanted her child to speak Italian, we would tell them to look elsewhere. If a family wanted a school with more STEM programs, project based learning or an enriched choral program, we would tell them to look elsewhere. Mandarin is a specialty area and there are schools that can accomodate families with that interest just as there are performing arts magnets and the like. ENOUGH ALREADY and many many others are simply tired of talking about a debate that is not really a debate. Everyone is welcome in MPCSD, every specialty program on public tax dollars is not. Comments?