The Mandarin Immersion Program at Ohlone School
by Jeannette Wei
(with “A Short History of Mandarin Immersion” by Grace Mah)
I became the Coordinator of the Mandarin Immersion (MI) Program in September of 2009, when our principal and my good friend, Bill Overton, asked if I, one of the pioneer teachers of Ohlone School, would help two teachers by coaching them about the Ohlone way of teaching, acquainting them to our collaborative school environment, guiding the management of a multi-grade class, looking at children developmentally in order to help each child succeed and viewing the social/emotional growth as important as the academic achievement. These tasks were extremely important to me! I accepted the challenge.
Not being aware of the patient, long and difficult process that Grace Mah and a grassroots organization of parents called PACE (Palo Alto Chinese Education), I invited Grace on January 30, 2012 for coffee and asked if she would write a short history about how the MI Program came to Ohlone School. She graciously accepted my invitation! Little did she know what a challenge that was! Her thorough and interesting report, “A Short History of Mandarin Immersion From Its Inception to Implementation at Ohlone Elementary School in Fall 2008”, is included below and details how dedicated and tenacious efforts brought the Mandarin Immersion Program to Ohlone! Thank you Grace, PACE, the Palo Alto Board of Education and everyone who made this happen!
A Short History of Mandarin Immersion From Its Inception to Implementation at Ohlone Elementary School in Fall 2008
by Grace Mah
In January 2002, the idea of a PAUSD Mandarin Immersion Program was initiated by Grace Mah with support from a grassroots organization of parents, PACE (Palo Alto Chinese Education). Working with school board members, PAUSD staff, community members, and families, PACE was able to make presentations to the Board of Education (BOE), write grant applications and program proposals to establish a MI program at Ohlone Elementary School in the fall of 2008.
Over 20 board meetings included discussion of MI as an information topic initiated by the public and studied in numerous contexts:
Establishing guidelines for the creation of new choice programs;
Evaluating two grant applications (one for a charter school startup grant, one for the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant);
Considering school boundaries by the AAAG (Area Attendance Advisory Group); 4. Determining school district priorities and the strategic plan;
Creation of a World Language Task Force to study the possibility of a FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School) program for PAUSD
Comparing charter schools to choice programs financially, and their impact on the school district
Various multiple drafts of different proposals, project plans, feasibility studies, and timelines were developed by PACE and PAUSD staff and the BOE discussed the many merits and difficulties in each one, engaging with the community in lively and sometimes rancorous debate.
The first mention of Ohlone as a possible site for MI was in the feasibility study presented to the BOE on 12/12/06. In summary:
Ohlone has a large enough site to be a full four-strand school with the addition of three modular classrooms. Schools outside the North cluster with the capacity to be four-strand schools or larger include Ohlone and Escondido, both of which offer choice programs already and both of which are comfortably at capacity but could be expanded.
At the January 9, 2007 meeting, Ohlone was discussed at considerable length as a possible site for MI:
Ohlone School could be considered a comprehensive choice model. This site has the acreage to become a four-strand school and could offer an immersion program as part of the site expansion. The program would be an integrated part of the Ohlone philosophy and structure.
PROS
Experienced, supportive principal
Staff experienced with multicultural curriculum
Collaborative school environment supportive of new ideas and possibilities • Four-strand school expansion capacity
Does not increase the number of choice programs
Does not displace neighborhood students
Total enrollment already by lottery
Could accommodate a small pilot and decide in three years whether to expand the pilot at Ohlone or relocate it to a different expanded or new site.
Multi-grade classes provide collaboration opportunities for teachers even with a small program.
Site has an interest in finding ways to share immersion program curriculum knowledge to integrate some FLES program structures within the school.
CONS
Shifts the total enrollment slightly over time from English only to include Immersion students in the Ohlone program
Proposed school size would require a waiver to become four strands
Requires decision on possible relocation at the end of the pilot
Moving to a different site a program begun as a part of the Ohlone philosophy and instructional program could be problematic
On January 30, 2007, the BOE took action on the feasibility study, voting the implementation plan down. Susan Charles made the following comments when asked about Ohlone housing the program:
Requires decision on possible relocation at the end of the pilot
Moving to a different site a program begun as a part of the Ohlone philosophy and instructional program could be problematic
Mitchell asked Charles what she thought the tradeoffs might be should MI start in the fall of 2008 rather than the fall of 2007. Charles responded that if the Board made a decision this evening, she believed MI could start in the fall of 2007. If a decision came much later
than that, she thought the implementation would have to be put off until fall 2008. Mitchell then asked about the opportunities or challenges in regard to the second year implementation of a FLES program. Charles responded that at Ohlone, they preferred programs be for all the students. If Mandarin came to Ohlone, the eventual goal would be that all second through fifth graders would be introduced to Mandarin for at least 30 minutes per week.
Townsend asked Charles how MI would fit with her vision of Ohlone. Charles said that she discussed this with her staff, and they agreed they did not want a direct instruction program coming to Ohlone and that it must fit into the Ohlone way of teaching. As long as there was enough time to prepare, staff agreed that MI would fit. Townsend asked what Charles would do if not everyone interested in a program could get in. Charles responded that limited space in a choice program was always difficult. Townsend then asked if there was a concern that if Mandarin came to Ohlone, another subject might suffer. Charles said she did not see this happening. Townsend asked if the accommodation of additional students had been considered. Charles said 5 modular classrooms could be added without affecting play space. Townsend asked if Charles anticipated the same ratio of native Mandarin speakers to non-native speakers as Escondido had for Spanish Immersion (SI). Charles responded that she would be basing Mandarin Immersion on that model.
Lowell asked if it would interfere with Ohlone’s program if enrollment went above 450. Charles said she believed the Ohlone program should be expanded anyway, because there was space and interest. Lowell asked for her analysis as to why the Board should not just expand Ohlone and include Mandarin, rather than add a stand-alone MI program. Charles said Ohlone could do either comfortably, though it would be easier to just expand the current program. Lowell asked if Charles had a Mandarin-speaking teacher on staff already. She said she currently had two.
Price said she was troubled by the issue of elementary school capacity, and also by the idea of opening additional capacity at Ohlone. Her impression was that the instruction of Mandarin was somewhat counterintuitive to the Ohlone approach to education, and that it would require teachers with a specific set of skills and abilities. Charles said she believed it was up to the Board to determine school size. Cohn-Vargas said she agreed that learning Mandarin might require different elements, but it did not require a direct instruction model.
Tom asked Charles if her staff people who spoke Mandarin would be teaching MI. She said no, but since they already spoke Mandarin and knew the Ohlone way, this was an advantage. Tom asked for an explanation of the difference between having the MI program, which might allow additional Mandarin education for all students, versus just adding Mandarin instruction to the Ohlone program with no MI at the site. Charles said the difference would be that she would have two teachers already dedicated to teaching Mandarin. Tom noted the MI model did not include more instructional time.
MOTION: Mitchell moved to approve Recommendation 3: Develop an implementation plan for a three-year single strand pilot of a dual Mandarin Chinese Immersion Program using the 80:20 model. This single strand pilot could begin in the fall of 2007 with two K/1 classes at Ohlone School (eliminating the inflexibility of a traditional single strand) and would follow the instructional model and philosophy of Ohlone. The program would be reviewed yearly, and during the third year of implementation, the final size and location of the program would be determined. She added to the recommendation that this was not a commitment to explore a middle school MI program and there would be a moratorium on additional choice programs being reviewed. After Board discussion, Mitchell agreed to a friendly amendment for a 2/3:1/3 student ratio English speakers: Mandarin speakers. Townsend seconded. Motion failed 2-3. (Tom, Price, Lowell voting No)
After a discussion on 3/27/07 on the tradeoffs between an MI Choice Program vs. an MI Charter School, a new timeline for starting a MI at Ohlone was developed and discussed on May 1, 2007.
Tom asked Charles what MI would mean for Ohlone, both for the choice program and for the rest of the school. She said this would not be a Mandarin Immersion at Ohlone, but rather an Ohlone program of Mandarin Immersion based on Ohlone’s core values. She hoped that as the program became established, it could be expanded to the larger community.
Lowell asked Charles if she preferred a choice program or a charter program. She also asked about additional staff time needed to run this program. Charles said that as a Palo Alto resident she did not want a charter, because time and resources would be diverted from the general education program of PAUSD. She also said that visiting other schools would be educational for her and her staff and would strengthen the Ohlone program.
Mitchell asked Charles why she and her staff offered to host MI at Ohlone. Charles said she and her staff determined Ohlone would best meet all the Board’s criteria for a choice program. Staff discussed this and chose to embrace it. Mitchell asked if the Board proceeded with this plan, if there was anything not mentioned here for which Charles would need Board support. Charles responded that Cook had conferred with her in composing this report to make sure it met her site’s needs. She then said that bringing the possibility of MI back again had surprised Ohlone staff and community. It was hoped that a firm decision would be made one way or another at the end of the month, so staff and community could move on. Mitchell then asked if, assuming this was a three- to five-year pilot, what facilities issues might arise.
Charles said that six portables was a lot; however, there was space for them at Ohlone. The Board, however, would have to decide whether or not it wanted an elementary school with 560 students, as this would raise issues of support. Mitchell asked if overlap among lottery parents was contemplated. (For example, she suggested that some lottery parents might also want to be in MI). Charles said she believed that at the onset at least, it would be a wash.
Townsend asked if there was room for the potential growth at Ohlone. Charles responded that Ohlone did have the physical space. Lowell asked if Charles thought a 560-student elementary was inappropriate in terms of the health and well-being of the children. Charles said no; however, an Assistant Principal, for example, would be needed in addition to more psychologist and resource time. Cohn-Vargas said staff had visited a 600-student school
with a Japanese Immersion program and a Spanish Immersion program, and it was running smoothly.
On May 22, 2007, the BOE discussed and postponed action on the MI timeline. Lowell asked if there was no MI program, would there be more money for special education services and if this answer would differ if a charter was created instead. She then asked Charles about her opinion on the racism issue. Charles said it made her sad that the issue of race would come up in a discussion like this. She had every faith the Ohlone community believed in an environment of cooperation and collaboration. If the program came to the community, everyone would be welcome. Lowell suggested that MI could cause divisions in the larger community. Charles said that she had faith in the community, and she was embarrassed that racism would come up.
Tom asked what the difficulty would be in finding teachers that could teach Mandarin and fit in with the Ohlone way. Charles said that when teachers were hired at Ohlone, they were given additional training in the Ohlone way. Tom asked if she felt the supply of teachers who were able to teach Mandarin was sufficient. Charles said a principal in Cupertino had offered her assistance in finding staff. Cohn-Vargas said staff wanted to be sure there was time to do thorough recruitment, so this was one of the reasons why the program could not start in 2007-08.
On June 5, 2007, the BOE discussed and approved the Ohlone MI program to start in Fall 2008.
Townsend asked Charles to describe how the MI program would operate at Ohlone School. Charles said that at Ohlone, children were looked at developmentally in order to determine how to help each child succeed. She saw no difference in this approach if teaching was to be done in another language. Townsend asked about the rollout of this program in Kindergarten and first grade. Charles said that at Ohlone, teaching was done in multi grade curriculum to meets the needs of each student in each subject, and that this was referred to as “constructivist learning.” Townsend asked how many students would be participating in an MI program in the first year. Charles said it was hoped there would be 20 kindergarteners and 20 first graders.
MOTION: Mitchell moved to approve the implementation of a dual immersion Mandarin/ English program to begin with two classes of K-1 students at Ohlone Elementary School in the fall of the 2008-2009 school year. This program will follow the Ohlone instructional model and philosophy and will be integrated into the life of the school. Townsend seconded. Motion carried 4-1. (Price voting No)
A big “Thank you” to Grace Mah, for giving us the historical perspective of how the Mandarin Immersion program arrived at Ohlone School.
Now I shall give my point of view as one of the founders of Ohlone School and as a coordinator of the MI program. Please note that it is only my personal opinion and observation and not a scientific study or result of any research. I apologize if there are inaccuracies or misinformation, and welcome questions and comments for future corrections or edits.
The MI program started in the fall of 2008, and progressed to date in this manner:
2008 - 2009 Two K/1 teachers
2009 - 2010 Two K/1 teachers
One 2nd grade teacher
2010 – 2011 Two K/1 teachers
Two 2/3 teachers
2011 – 2012 Two K/1 teachers
Two 2/3 teachers
One 4th grade teacher
After working with two teachers in 2009, I approached our principal, Bill, and offered to help train the two new incoming 2/3 teachers in the summer of 2010, orienting them to the Ohlone Way, preparing them for the opening of school and setting up their classes, teaching them ways to integrate into an existing school culture. Bill was similarly thinking such ideas and was pleased that I would be willing to do that during the summer of 2010. Since then, I have trained the two 2/3 teachers, the 4th grade teacher, and will continue to train the new 4/5 teacher in the summer of 2012.
The following are people I was involved with while working in the MI program: teachers; children; parents, Bill Overton, principal; Norman Masuda, Chinese language expert/ consultant; Ohlone staff members involved as Buddy classes or cluster members; support staff (farm, music, P.E., art, librarians, math, computer, resource specialist, speech teachers, aides, staff from the central office} and staff members of the “Better Chinese” curriculum.
Here are some of the activities in which I participated: group and individual meetings with parents, weekly lunch meetings with the MI teachers, visits in the MI classrooms, bi-weekly meetings with the principal and MI teachers after school, bi-weekly (and later, monthly) meeting with Norman Masuda and the MI teachers, attending the workshop, “Responsive Classroom” with an MI teacher, meetings to discuss curriculum and curriculum standards K through 5, meetings about testing /assessments and evaluation for Mandarin proficiency –grades K through 5. There were meetings on classroom management, discipline, social emotional behavior awareness, individuation and teaching to different levels of social/ emotional/academic as well as individual development of each student in the classroom.
My Personal Thoughts and Observations about the Mandarin Immersion Program at Ohlone School (and what we can do to improve it)
I am amazed that I can go into any of the Mandarin Immersion classrooms, K through 4, and speak to the children in Mandarin! (example below -- speaking Mandarin to a first grader, translated into English);
How are you? Fine, thank you!
Did you have a good lunch? Yes.
What did you eat? I had pizza. It’s Friday today.
What did you do over the weekend? My parents and I went to the park. Then we went to our grandparents’ house for dinner.
Are they your mother’s or father’s parents? My father’s parents.
Did you have a good time there? Yes, my grandma gave me a book and a toy.
I have seen their Chinese characters - in penmanship practice, in sentences and in compositions, in their journals and on the bulletin boards! Some children were using pin yin to input characters on the computers in the 4th grade. Some were speaking in Chinese, practicing for a class play they will present to the whole school. In the Kindergarten room, the teacher was reading a Chinese story to the class after lunch. She asked them questions in Mandarin, the children raised their arms, she called on one of them, and the child answered in Mandarin! Wow, awesome!
Yes, I certainly see progress in all the rooms. Dual-immersion in Mandarin at Ohlone is indeed showing many successes. Of course there are different levels of accomplishment and achievement in all subjects in the classrooms, just as in the regular classrooms at Ohlone.
We are very fortunate to find competent Mandarin teachers who are willing to embrace the Ohlone Way and philosophy of teaching and relating with all people, especially children.
The areas that we must be alert to are:
Find and recruit teachers who are proficient in speaking standard Mandarin. (Teachers who apply come from many different areas: Northern or Southern China, Taiwan, Singapore, or Malasia, etc. , and many don’t speak standard Mandarin.) When speaking Chinese, there are five tones. One single character can be mispronounced and give a totally different meaning. For example; the word “Ma” can be pronounced to be “mother”, “horse”, “scold’ or “hemp”! For example, I was born in Shanghai, where we spoke Shanghai dialect. My parents were from Canton, which is in southern China. We spoke Cantonese at home. So I do not speak perfect standard Mandarin. My Mandarin has a southern Chinese accent sometimes! Ohlone would like to have teachers who speak standard Mandarin in the Mandarin Immersion program.
Recruit teachers who can write simplified Chinese characters well, and do not mix traditional and simplified Chinese characters in writing. (Example, my Chinese name in traditional Chinese is 韋健蘭. My Chinese name in simplified Chinese is 韦か兰)
In the Chinese culture traditionally, many people are trained to be respectful of superiors or elders, to keep their emotions within and not share them outwardly – rather only with those in their same status. This is especially true with women, as traditionally, boys have more status than girls. Since boys were more favored, sometimes they became self-centered, or men with large egos and arrogance. This is contrary to Ohlone philosophy of how we relate to and treat one another. We must find teachers who have a strong sense of self and positive self-image; people who are open to positive criticism, not easily offended or overly sensitive; who are able to work collaboratively with all ages, can laugh at themselves and have a good sense of humor.
These teachers also have to be proficient in English (both in speaking and writing (including language art and grammar), so that the students will succeed in English as well.
Such teachers have a passion to teach and empathy for both adults and children. They are good listeners, flexible, receptive to advice, willing to learn and able to accept that they also make errors. They are also forgiving, honest and dependable, hard working, and able to set boundaries for themselves and for their students.
They are also good at organization, classroom management and neatness.
It is essential that we have good parent/teacher relationship and strong parent support. They use weekly classroom newsletters, parent meetings, telephone calls, email, and casual chats before or after school with parents. They are willing to train parents how to be good volunteers, involve parents to plan class activities (field trip, class plays, birthday parties, special celebrations/events, etc.) as this helps accomplish positive parent engagement.
Reading the above, it would seem almost impossible to find such people tor the Ohlone Mandarin Immersion program! These are alerts to acquire the best potential teachers for the dual-immersion Mandarin/English classes. In fact, except for 1, 2 and the beginning part of 3, all educators (especially young ones), should have the potential and desire to achieve these qualities – and many succeed!
Most important is that all of us have to remember that we ourselves are not perfect yet! We are all on a continuum of reaching these goals. We all work as a team and support each other to grow and learn! Bill Overton, each of us, the site council, the P.T.A, the officials and Board of the Palo Alto Unified School system all strive to provide opportunities for us to achieve these goals. We must trust each other to do that and model it to our children. Then Ohlone School will continue to be a wonderful, magical place for our children, for our staff, for our world .
留言