My Family’s Experiment in Extreme Schooling
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
* I am very glad I came from Russia (well, USSR at that time) to the accepting, everyone-is-a-winner US and not the other way around. It would have been much harder for me the other way around, especially if I had to attend public school.
* I really appreciate the forging of one's sense of self that such an experience brings. I vividly remember going back and forth between viewing myself as an American and as a Russian during my teen years. I believe my identity eventually transcended either American or Russian; I view myself as an Earthian, a world citizen now, one who can become more Russian or more American depending on the circumstances.
Plus American education is in general less rigorous than the equivalent-year Russian education, and seeing as how kids in Russia learn some English in school, it's a much easier transition from Russia to U.S. than vice versa.
The struggle then is purely a social one, kids in the U.S. don't have a belief of camaraderie, whereas in Russia a classmate would rarely get someone else in trouble casually, this happened routinely in U.S. schools. Plus of course, insert all the usual teasing about not understanding or knowing the language, being a communist/capitalist, etc.
1. We immigrated from Russia when I was 9- didn't speak a word of English (didn't know what "who are you?" meant on the first day of class). Spent the first year in an ESL class, within a year I was speaking English freely, all my classmates were also recent immigrants from former Soviet republics so there was very little culture shock (at least in school). But because the class focused on English and little else, I lost the great math skills I had when I came from the Russian system. Took me a few years to get completely comfortable with my new language but by the 9th grade I was one of the top students in all my classes (except math, that skill or rather the interest in the subject never recovered).
2. My cousin's son was born in the US. The parents wanted to make sure his first language was Russian- they only spoke to him in Russian, he went to a Russian day-care, watched only Russian cartoons, had only Russian friends. Then for kindergarden (around the age of 4 or 5) he got sent to a normal American school. The first month or so he experienced what the writer's kids experienced- complete cultural shock, he spent the evenings at home crying that he didn't want to go to school because he couldn't understand anything, but little by little he adjusted and is now comfortable in his new environment.
3. My wife and I met in Moscow last year, she moved to the US six months ago. She's in her early 20s, very smart (finished her university with straight As), had a good job in Moscow and is used to always being the best at whatever she tries. She's studying English full time, but is having trouble adjusting to an environment where she is not independent and has to rely on me not only financially but at least initially on simple things such as grocery shopping or explaining to the women at the nail salon how she wanted her nails done. She's picking up English quickly but the first few months she was afraid of sounding dumb and refused to speak English with anyone outside of a classroom environment. I won't even go into the cultural shock and how difficult the transition has been for her from a popular, successful woman to one with no job or friends in a new country (that's a topic for another post).
1. I was also 9 when we arrived here, but we ended up in a rural area that did not have ESL classes, and for the longest time, we were the only Russian-speaking students in our school (long enough that I didn't feel the urge to communicate with them once they arrived, on a regular basis). My math also fell to an above-average level, but I never really cared for it beyond thinking it was nifty.
2. My brother (19 years my junior) experienced something very similar to your nephew, but we took it in stride and he adjusted very quickly.
3. My wife also came from Russia only 5 years ago, she experienced the same feelings as your wife did.
4. We also are experiencing a fourth experience: our oldest speaks Russian fluently for her age. In order for her not to experience shock when she went to kindergarten, we started speaking English with her for about half the day about six months before she started kindergarten (and really, we intentionally exposed her to English all along, but focused on Russian at first). Now that she's in kindergarten, she understands almost everything, and can communicate well enough that she doesn't need to attend ESL, although she still doesn't know all the words in English that she does in Russian.
By the way, where are you located?
My parents were living in Germany when I was born. My mother flew back to California for my birth, but I never really lived there. I grew up in an American household in Germany. My parents spoke just enough German to get by, and my older sisters spoke German quite fluently because they attended German public schools. However, English was the only language spoken at home. My mother taught me to read English at home, to the point where I could read age-appropriate children's books on my own by the time I was four, but she didn't teach me to read or write German.
In Germany, what we call "Pre-school" is called "Kindergarten," and what we call "Kindergarten" is called "Vor-schule," which literally translates as "Pre-school." My parents never put me in Kindergarten, so my first day of school was the first day of Vor-schule. They enrolled me at a German public school. As you might expect, all instruction was in German. Most, but not all, of the teachers spoke fluent English, but none of the other children spoke any English. The teachers would not speak English to me as part of instruction, but would for other issues (e.g. going to the bathroom). I remember it being difficult and bewildering at first, but I picked up the German quickly and spoke it as well as I spoke English by the end of that first year. In subsequent years, I remember acting as translator between my parents and teachers.
I think that a big key to all of this is starting young, when the child is still in the process of learning language anyway. I think that 2nd or 3rd grade is probably about as far as you could push it without adding some supplemental language tutoring.
One other thing that I wonder about this example is it includes three Caucasian American kids in what I believe is a mostly Caucasian school. There were also three of them, instead of just one, which I think made the adjustment easier. It's comforting knowing a sibling is nearby -- my own kids had this experience when attending a summer school in Asia in 2008 and 2009 -- it was very reassuring for the younger one, knowing his sister was in a classroom upstairs.
Another situation I was wondering about: If African or Asian children were enrolled in the Russian School, would they have been able to find their place as quickly as the NYT correspondent's family?
I enjoyed the experience so much that I did the same in Germany and in Spain (I wanted to go on and do the same in Japan during high school but my parents nixed that). Kids are really adaptable and even if it is a bit hard at the beginning I truly believe that it's broadens the mind.
So, to answer some of the comments who mention it's child abuse, well from the perspective of someone who was put into a foreign environment as a child I think children are more resilient and more happy to learn and discover news culture, languages and things than you imagine.
Although I think the thought of video taping classes would not go down well in the western world.
(but anyway, don't you find that you end up living in a middle-world that is not as comfortable as either? this seems to be common amongst ex-pat adults)
Again, great piece!
Yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3002586
HN is now so overloaded with so much that's not truly of "deep interest" that contentful items fall quickly off the "newest" page and don't get a chance. I think that some items genuinely do deserve a second chance.
My views have been well-documented elsewhere, and having been hammered karma-wise before now, I won't clutter HN with them again.
Amen.
Right now we're researching pre-schools for my son and consequently other schools. It's super stressful. I want him to have a great holistic education and with California's school district the way it is, that rules out most public schools.
Related to this idea of risk comparing the US to Russia I found this video that some Russian kids posted last week fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjAMdbEXSdo There you will see four school kids, three boys and a girl, wearing street clothes, climb the cable of a fairly tall suspension bridge, while videotaping the whole thing. Meanwhile cars drive by hundreds of feet below. No one calls the police, the kids aren't arrested then placed in state care, the parents aren't arrested and charged with neglect. That's what would happen in the US and people would be on TV denouncing everything about this. Is what they are doing dangerous? Somewhat. The chance of falling is similar to that of playing on the monkey bars, only the potential injuries are clearly more severe. That said, children have died from monkey bar falls. Should climbing suspension cables be advocated or sold as an adventure holiday? I'd say not. I find it very interesting though that in Russia it's not interfered with. The kids choose to do it of their own free will and they are not harming anyone, they are assuming the risk themselves. Let them do it, why not. In the past, Americans accepted more risk, more crying, more stunts. People went to the moon, an intrinsically dangerous task. Russians tried to go to the moon as well. Many died trying. It was considered worth the risk, people took the risks themselves, and if they were hurt that was part of life.
- 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
- 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
- 58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
- 115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)
(source: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L...)
The video was interesting. What was the reaction of Russian people to the video, as opposed to drivers on the bridge, who may not have noticed what was going on?
Here's a source from the Department of Justice with some more information.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/03/ns5.html
This points out the number of true kidnappings of "children and youth" is between 60 and 170 within 95% confidence level, and 115 the best average estimate.
Concerning the 58,2000 "non-family abductions" reported in NISMART-2 (National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children), it notes 47% were known to police and 53% had no police contact. Most the time was because the family expected the minor to return. This gets into that the "non-family abduction" category includes many teen runaway cases where leaving was initiated by the minor themselves. Regarding family and non-family abductions that are counted as abductions but not counted as missing children, NISMART-2 notes: "Examples include children who ran away to the homes of relatives or friends, causing their caretakers little or no concern; children who were held by family members in known locations (e.g., an ex-spouse’s home); and children who were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators but released before anyone noticed that they were missing."
It goes on to point out that NISMART–1 estimated 3,200–4,600 non-family abductions and NISMART-2 estimated the 58,200 we are looking at. The difference was that NISMART-1 used a "legal definition" of non-family abduction, which for example didn't include runaways, it included police reports where there was actual evidence of an abduction.
The report also covers what I mentioned that most of the actual 115 or so true kidnappings are teenage girls and not small children: "The NISMART–2 findings reinforce the 1988 study's conclusion that teenage girls are the most frequent targets of nonfamily abductions and stereotypical kidnappings. To some extent, this finding contrasts with the image drawn from media accounts of the abduction of very young children such as Adam Walsh and Samantha Runnion. Perhaps the innocence and vulnerability of younger children ensure more publicity and greater notoriety for these cases. Nonetheless, in planning strategies for preventing and responding to nonfamily abductions, it is important to keep efforts from being misdirected by the stereotype of the preteen victim. In fact, the vulnerability of teens needs to be a central principle guiding such planning."
Regarding the very large numbers reported for missing children, NISMART-2 notes: "Most of the caretaker missing children became missing because they ran away (48 percent) or because of benign misunderstandings about where they should be (28 percent). Together, these two reasons accounted for 84 percent of all children who were reported missing." It also notes that many children go missing more than once care must be taken which counts are per incident vs per individual. Also regarding missing children, NISMART-2 points out that, "Only a fraction of 1 percent of the children who were reported missing had not been recovered by the time they entered the NISMART–2 study data. Thus, the study shows that, although the number of caretaker missing children is fairly large and a majority come to the attention of law enforcement or missing children’s agencies, all but a very small percentage are recovered fairly quickly."
Of the stereotypical kidnappings that NISMART-2 estimates as 115 per year, these are quite dangerous as 40% of them result in the child being killed and an additional 4% in being never recovered. But again, most of these "by far" are teen girls. With the non-stereotypical kidnappings that is the vast majority of abductions, one of the example cases they give is of a 14 yr old teenage boy that was detained and then released by an alarmed citizen when he was found hunting in a public park with a shotgun, a 4 yr old boy that did not get off at the right stop on the school bus and was later returned home when the bus driver found him, a babysitter who would not let the children leave until she was paid, and a 17 yr old girl who was taken by her 17 yr old date to a mountain even though she didn't really want to go there and molested by him until he gave up and returned her home. None of these nonfamily abductions they give as examples involve small children playing in the yard unsupervised who are taken by a stranger.
Actually that's nothing like my sentiment. There is an age and time appropriateness that shouldn't be overlooked. Immersive study is excellent - my own daughter had my support to immerse into Argentina for 6 months when she was only 17 and I certainly wouldn't have considered it unless she had life skills, coping skills and emotional maturity.
But, plunking a kindergartener into an immersive foreign language and culture environment is dubious wisdom.
While parenting is most certainly not deterministic, it does seem to me that the child (especially the youngest) experienced quite a bit of unnecessary suffering so that the author could proceed with an experiment. That the suffering ended with fairly positive results is as serendipitous as any non-deterministic process.
(edited for some grammar)
"Life at New Humanitarian was full of academic Olympiads, poetry-reciting contests and quiz bowls. The school stressed oral exams, even in math, where children had to solve an equation at the blackboard and explain methodology. Children were graded and ranked, with results posted. We were not accustomed to this: in Brooklyn, the school instilled an everyone’s-a-winner ethos. At New Humanitarian, Danya says, “they send an entirely different message to the kids: ‘Learning is hard, but you have to do it. You have to get good grades.’ ”
Kids are resilient. If it doesn't kill them, it can make them stronger. That doesn't mean that I believe it's OK to torture them in order to make them stronger. The ends don't justify the means.
It frankly ISN'T the competitiveness that troubles me. Not in the slightest. It's dropping the kids into a school where they can't understand ANYTHING, nor can they be understood, that strikes me as cruel and unusual. It's one thing to do that to someone who WANTS it. Kids have very little control over their lives, though, and forcing that on a kid (except when there is really no choice) is just wrong.
Especially since the PREMISE is wrong: Kids simply don't learn foreign languages faster and easier than adults. They learn them at a deeper level (different brain structures), so that they can eventually learn to speak a language as a native, but it takes as long or longer than an adult learning the same language for them to become proficient.
Not that I didn't expect it, since so many HN readers seem to disagree.
Consider the situation: A person with some underlying psychiatric disorder decides to steal a car. They are arrested, trialled, and ordered to receive counseling at a mental health institution. As a result of the counseling, they are able to cope with their disability and become a more successful member of society.
Does this mean that stealing a car is a good idea? No!
The kids were not successful because they were forced to learn Russian. They were successful because they entered an innovative and expensive (USD 10000!) private school which made special exceptions and put in extra effort to bring the kids up to speed. This sort of extra effort is not the sort of treatment one should come to expect and rely on. It is what humans do in order to take care of others who have made grave errors; it is an outgrowth of compassion for the foolish. The bit about a teacher running a class in English should really drive this point home.
I am happy to hear that the kids were able to succeed. However, the author is a chode.