By Rebecca Anshell Song
The article, “Parents accuse Bellevue School District of favoring rich kids in school closures” provided only one perspective on the recent school consolidations in Bellevue. It suggested that BSD was favoring rich families by closing two schools and moving choice schools onto their campuses. It did not include any input or fact-checking from Jing Mei Elementary staff, students, or families. I am a Jing Mei parent and I want to respond to some of the issues he raised.
Jing Mei and Big Picture needed new facilities
First and foremost, readers should know that prior to this school year, Jing Mei and Big Picture were housed in two of the three oldest campuses within Bellevue School District. The third old campus is occupied by another choice school, International School. This wasn’t mentioned at all in the article.
Jing Mei’s campus was constructed in 1965. Big Picture was built in 1960. Despite having had minor renovations, neither of those 60-year-old campuses were up to the modern standards for safety and security of students. Both schools had an open corridor plan with countless different entrances and exits, which made it nearly impossible to know who was on the campus at any given time. Especially because of the uptick in school shootings, this made many families very nervous.
There was a recognition by Bellevue School District that the three schools remaining in old buildings posed a safety and security hazard and cost the district a lot of money in upkeep. Every other school in the district has been rebuilt in the last 20 years or so. After BSD consolidated two elementary schools due to declining enrollment, they made the decision to move two of the choice schools into those buildings. That was done in lieu of rebuilding those campuses and incurring massive construction costs.
The article also claimed that additional funds would be used to upgrade the Wilburton campus for the incoming Jing Mei families. The school district has clearly and publicly stated that this is false. The only money spent on updating the campus was to change the signs.
Equity concerns
There are absolutely equity questions that should be addressed regarding choice schools. School programs that require parents to opt in and travel often have more students with higher incomes and more advantaged backgrounds. I would be happy to have a district wide discussion about how to make these programs more equitable, including the option of housing dual language programs in multiple schools instead of just one. I know that I am not the only parent at Jing Mei who feels this way.
In fact, I would prefer to see every school offer a dual language option. Learning a second language is extraordinarily beneficial to students. Not only is it a better path to English proficiency for students learning English as a second language, it allows students with families from other countries to better learn and understand their own relatives and culture.
A 2019 meta-analysis of research on foreign language learning found that bilingualism supports cognitive flexibility, employment success, academic achievement, cultural competence, and enhanced creativity. These are skills that all our students deserve to have access to. Unfortunately, the former parents from Wilburton Elementary that are attacking Jing Mei are more interested in attacking the language programs our district offers than improving them.
Anti-Chinese racism
Bellevue’s demographics have been changing for the last couple of decades. Our city is now majority non-white, with many immigrants from different parts of the world making up a huge portion of the population. Anyone who lives here and pays attention will tell you that this has also led to tension and backlash from some white residents who wish the city would “go back to what it used to be.”
While I would never assume that all parents involved in this effort are racist, they are choosing to scapegoat a Chinese school and blame our community for decisions made by district leaders. We have multiple dual language programs and choice schools in the district, but Jing Mei is the only school being singled out.
As a result, several public discussions of this issue have opened the door to racist comments, ranging from “those people should try to assimilate instead of segregating themselves” to “if the Jing Mei parents get angry, they are untouchable.” These comments reflect antagonism to the Chinese community in Bellevue. Some community members have opposed the whole idea of dual language programs, saying that students in the U.S. should only learn English.
The article did not help respond to any of this racism. In fact, the assertion that only two languages are spoken at Jing Mei is not only horribly inaccurate, it is harmful. There are at least a dozen different languages spoken at home by Jing Mei families and suggesting that the school only consists of Mandarin-speaking Chinese families both portrays our school as homogenous and marginalizes our families from other parts of the world.
The parents attacking Jing Mei need to rethink the way their rhetoric is fanning the flames of racism. If they truly want to start a district-wide discussion about equity in our choice programs, it should start by involving us, not attacking us.
It may be helpful to review the origins of world language immersion schools. The purpose is to ensure native language fluency, particularly needed for national diplomacy, national defense, national economy, not to mention local needs in health care and hospitality. Abundant research shows early language immersion starting in elementary school through high school is the best model to ensure fluency. Then President Bush signed the National Security Language Initiative in 2006 when he discovered there were only two Arabic translators available for the rooms full of intelligence that needed translating. Today, the National Security Agency defines critically needed languages as Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Persian and Russian and sponsors grant programs to 1) increase numbers of highly effective teachers of critical languages 2) increase numbers of students enrolled in critical languages; 3) increase highly effective curricula & materials available to students & teachers of critical languages; 4) enhance workforce development in federal government to meet national security needs through the study of critical languages (www.startalk.info/educators-continuinged). A newer goal is to enhance the cybersecurity workforce through study of critical need languages.
Authorized by Congress, NSA Startalk funds grant programs for Goals 1-4. I am director of one of the Startalk teacher grant programs through a Startalk partnership with City University of Seattle.
John Stanford International, Jing Mei, Puesta, Beacon Hill, Concord, and Dearborn Park Elementaries are examples of starting a language pipeline that feeds into middle schools that feed into high schools on both sides of Lake Washington. Done properly, young learners can achieve fluency by early middle school.
Remember the purpose of world language immersion schools rather than viewing them as pockets of “segregation.” Discuss and determine how to ensure that all schools serve families and district needs better. Superintendent Aramaki is new; work with him.
Pete. What are you even talking about?
I’ve consistent argued *for more Mandarin programs* – within general education school, if there is demand for it. All this while taking abuse from white parents who are claiming Asian hate from just from me, but also from Mandarin speaking parents who have seen their own children displaced by a school that they don’t want to and can’t sent their kids to.
Seriously – what is your argument against moving segregated school programs into general ed? Leave your DARVO at the door and argue in good faith.
Even Rebecca is open to the idea and welcomes the discussion of schools vs programs.
I live in a mixed race family and have watched rhetoric spread by you and others on Nextdoor that is increasing the risk of violence directed towards Jing Mei. As for Tim’s agenda, I believe that is more of a personal grudge against the school which he still continues to skirt the question if he ever applied to have a child there but was rejected due to language proficiency requirements for older grades.
Don’t worry though, myself and a number of other parents are going to meet with the superintendent and board to review the countless unhinged posts that have been spread on social media with gross misinformation about Jing Mei. I’ve got copies of all of them, including posts by people in the community saying Chinese families at Jing Mei should assimilate or leave by a person on Nextdoor. I’ve got posts where you say “West Asian” referring to Chinese people not liking to be referred to as just “Asian”, (China is in East Asia by the way). I am specifically focused on just allowing you and other’s own words/post to show the vitriol rather than even injecting my opinion, because it is beyond toxic what has been suggested and the blatant misinformation or misrepresentation of stats.
As for Rebecca’s stance, she said it would have been something she could have discussed but that wasn’t what the districted elected to do. She didn’t say it was her choice. You keep trying to get people to say the sliver of an option is a full endorsement.
Your continued claims that Jing Mei stole Wilburton from various people of color is only intended to stoke outrage towards Jing Mei which very well could escalate to violence these days. It is beyond disgusting.
West Asian, West Asian, West Asian.
I don’t know what you find so offensive about my pointing out that the Bellevue West Asian population (e.g. our Indian, Pakistani, and Afghani neighbors among others) may not feel well served by being described demographically as generic Asian by Bellevue and Washington in the context of the Mandarin schools that so few of them have an interest in … and many of them were displaced by, or narrowly avoided being the displaced by (in the case my personal friends at my own school).
You’re the one declaring “Asian hate”. Let me help you – what you mean to say is either “hatred towards Chinese”, or “hatred toward Mandarin” speaking people.
I don’t hate either, of course. But please do us the courtesy of being precise in your accusations.
I do hate that public money being spent on segregation when those education needs can be served without it. Please feel free to quote me.
Re: “Your continued claims that Jing Mei stole Wilburton from various people of color is only intended to stoke outrage towards Jing Mei which very well could escalate to violence these days. It is beyond disgusting.”
I’m sorry you find talking about the recent facts personally offensive. Imagine how Wilburton and Eastgate families feel.
I’ve written how the district could have avoided this. If you really fear conflict, perhaps promote the path less likely to lead to conflict as I do. I’ve asked you repeatedly: “why not Mandarin programs in general ed. schools, instead of Mandarin schools?”
Why are you afraid of answering this simple question?
Your previous comments were represented as Jing Mei families being West Asian, and Indian is actually South Asia not West Asia so nice demonstration of the lack of geographic knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Asia
In terms of adding mandarin to multiple schools, I’m all for expanding the program, but not at the cost of Jing Mei. Puesta exists along side a number of other Spanish dual language programs, so why can’t Jing Mei? Why aren’t you calling for the end of Puesta? Because you have an obvious bias and agenda against the Asian community. By the way, my family is not native Mandarin speaking and went through the English side lottery at JM when we were in elementary. We were even waitlisted to get into Jing Mei.
Enjoy having your name plastered all over the superintendent and school safety office because your comments along with the plethora of other racist comments from various other social media and Tim’s obvious personal agenda have been sent over.
“among others”. Its right there. But still that is my own mistake. I apologize unreservedly to my South Asian and elsewhere-Asian friends if they felt misidentified, above – I meant only to identify that, while BSD and WA seems to recognize only “Asian” in its demographics, Bellevue is the welcome home to many Asians who are not as interested in learning Mandarin as you, personally, might hope. And while it shows JM as 73% “Asian”, even that cohort in Jing Mei likely doesn’t represent the diversity of Asians that Bellevue has! And so it appears *even more* segregated, through that lens.
Why are we even talking about “Asians” – the *only* reason is because you played the “Asian hate” card in a discussion about a school that’s entirely Mandarin language and segregated for those who see a benefit in learning that language.
You can write to BSD, but my experience is that you never hear back. I’d be curious to see if you’re in a position to have more success.
Re: “Asian hate.” Here, I really am confused because I keep arguing *for* Mandarin language education (as it really is very popular in Bellevue) – but in general ed. schools. But you keep calling that Asian hate. Why, Pete?
And you still never answered my question…
“What’s the argument for not having Mandarin programs in our culturally well integrated general ed. schools, instead of a segregated Mandarin school?” I’ve asked 6, maybe 7 times now (here and elsewhere). Anyone might think you’re not arguing in good faith.
Dud you’ve become unhinged on this topic and it is clear you not only fail to see your own bias and frankly lack of geographic understanding, but also the fact that you are pushing a false narrative completely. I’m done arguing and will simply resolve this with district leadership and the school safety team.
Ok, PD. Cool. 🙄
😂
As a former Wilburton parent I am incensed that BSD closed MY neighborhood school for a school that you have to know about prior to Kindergarten or 1st grade to put your name into the lottery. If after 1st grade – sorry, you’re outta luck you have to test in. How equitable is that?! EVERYTHING about BSD choice schools is inequitable if you don’t speak English, you just moved into the district or you are not connected enough to even know about the program! Gen Ed schools are open to EVERYONE!!! It is a travesty what happened to Wilburton. The staff was diverse, tech centered and inclusive. Did you know that only a handful of elementary schools have Computer Science class? Wilburton was one of them and now, poof, gone. Inequitable. Every elementary school should have Computer Science class! BSD leadership is a joke. They deserve everything that is coming to them on the current overcrowding of classrooms, the amount of students from outside the district now open enrolled (poaching from other schools districts is not only not cool but really?) causing some of the overcrowding, and their current budget of cutting just close to $9M of a $30M dollars deficit (they claimed they would save $6M by closing Wilburton and Eastgate) is a joke. Oh, and the Arabic language program is a bust thus far. Keep the Insta posts coming BSD leadership. You are a joke.
Life isn’t always fair. People who are willing to invest time in evaluating their children’s education options might get a jump on you. Should the district close Puesta, international School and Big Picture because a kid didn’t get in? How about the advanced learning program.
Anyone can apply to the program. I know 3 people in my daughter’s old class (she is beyond Jing Mei now) who came in after the Kindergarten lottery.
While I agree that we should all look at BSD leadership to blame, using unattributed partial quotes as evidence for some broader racist conspiracy against your school community is a cheap move and undermines your main message.
With respect to “2 languages are spoken at JM,” that is based on the original intent of dual language program – 50% of the kids are Native English Speakers, and 50% are Mandarin speakers, who are not Native English Speakers.
That’s not right. 50% of students at the school are native Mandarin speakers, 50% are not. The ones who don’t speak Chinese can have many different languages spoken at home.
Tim has continued to present a false narrative around this item while failing to disclose if he ever applied to get his child into Jing Mei in later grade but wasn’t able to pass the language proficiency requirements. Previous comments of his suggest this is the case. What is sad, is we knew 3 kids who were not Native mandarin speakers who were able to pass that language proficiency requirement required only for later grades without issue. One of those kids wasn’t even Chinese, with the other two being mixed race Chinese (Cantonese)/White but had worked hard to ensure they were able to meet proficiency levels.
In reality, Tim is a shady personal injury and DUI attorney trying to drum up awareness of his business and tear down a program that he hates because of his own issues. It is pretty clear, he just won’t admit it publicly.
A few counter points to the author on facilities: BSD spent 4.8M to renovate JM in 2016!! Jing Mei and Big Picture kids, everyone of them, have the right to enroll in their neighborhood schools with new buildings. Wilburton and Eastgate kids do NOT have the right to enroll in Jing Mei/Big Picture because those are “choice schools,” that kids would have to “lottery in.” It is extremely entitled for certain JM parents to 1) decide not to attend their neighborhood school, and 2) demand that their kids be housed in newer building at the expense of the Wilburton kids who were already there. Lastly, Jing Mei is the least integrated of all elementary school in BSD 74% Asian, 19% 2 or more races, 5% white, 2% Hispanic, 1% black, 8% low income and 19% English Learners. Wilburton, on the hand reflects the diversity of the City, with 40 % Asian, 27% White, 8% Black, 14% Hispanic, 26% low-income, 30% English Learners, attending school together in an integrated setting. To close an integrated school so a segregated Jing Mei can have a new building? That is just perpetuating segregation at the expense of integration. BSD should be ashamed of themselves.
Nobody disputes the value of language learning. Bellevue has language learning widely … in middle and high school.
And no-one blames Jing Mei families. Who said that? Jing Mei parents!
Where is the evidence of Asian hate as has been claimed? *Those* claims seems to be coming from white people and aimed at a mandarin speaking speaking Taiwanese man! The absurdity!
What a divisive and toxic claim that is itself manufacturing outrage. Clearly some people have a bad case of the West Coast sickness – DARVO – its the new COVID.
In all seriousness… I AM grateful for your headline “Jing Mei Elementary is not to blame for Bellevue’s school closures” – YES! BSD, not Jing Mei, families is to blame for creating this divisive situation which has led to a school that has well served black, low income, LGBTQ, homeless and special ed students to be displaced by a segregated school that does not (or, objectively so, measurably so, serves those groups much less). Wilburton even served a much higher portion of English language learners – Jing Mei just 10% ELL, not the 50% asked for by the state for D/L programs. Equity support for ELLs was after all the reason we have a Mandarin language school in first place. These are the unfortunate facts that BSD has left Jing Mei parents holding. As to why no-one is complaining about Puesta – it is obvious: the Puesta school has not displaced anyone. Yet.
I DO also welcome a discussion on choice programs vs choice schools. Thank you! And I am happy to oblige your kind invitation!
Why *do* we have a single Mandarin school, instead of several Mandarin programs across the district? Demand for them is so high! We’d require no more teachers. Programs could be more conveniently located in more neighborhood schools. General education schools would expose Chinese students to more diverse cultures at recess, and programs might likely receive even higher enrollment rates, with choice programs in general ed schools being less alienating to non Chinese students than (what is perceived as, and how you yourself unfortunately identify it as) a “Chinese” school for “Chinese families” – not just a Mandarin language school. Also, as interest in Mandarin increases/decreases, so it is also much easier for *programs* in neighborhood schools to be “right sized” instead of *schools*. Wasn’t an insufficiency of right sizing the very reason we told that some schools must close and those families should suck eggs?
Why not this? Programs over school?
What _possible_ reason is there to prefer choice language schools over choice programs?
The *most benevolent* answer I can find is that the district would prefer not to give up a popular school with a 10/10 Great School Rating and its consequent waiting list.
Jing Mei claims (as does Puesta) to provide ‘college preparatory education’ for our K-5 elementary kids. Yes! Don’t we ALL want such success for our precious ones?
But this success is something that Jing Mei has achieved ONLY by being of (OBJECTIVELY! MEASURABLY!) less interest to black, low income, homeless, special ed and English language learning students.
If you cut out the chuck roast — sure, you see more of the prime rib. Take out the whey, more cream.
Yes – 10/10. But it is paid for by a loss of equity. Please provide the evidence that Jing Mei, despite its academic success has raised OVERALL student achievement in the district if we’re to trust that this segregation is in the public good.
Re: “Our city is now majority non-white, with many immigrants from different parts of the world”
Yes. But also, WOW!
Bellevue is also 50% male. Can we have a school for boys please? Bros can hang out and talk about bro things and share in bro culture? Ladies? … ‘no’, you say? Its OK, We’ll make it open access – girls can still apply, OK? Still no? You don’t want it? Sounds alienating? I see…
You have no more right for a Chinese school on public money than Leavenworth would have to a public German school for “nice white” German children, or local Catholics to use public money to run a Catholic school.
Chinese schools for Chinese kids? Rich schools for rich kids? Segregation is as segregation does. Pretty soon its Black schools for Black kids and poor schools for poor kids again.
“Why not?” you say. “If that is what people want – they are free to choose among choice schools.”
The answer is because, as has happened here, and has happened the past across the US, you cannot avoid giving to one group while taking from another.
Toxic division and resentment is an inevitable consequence of segregation.
Where shall we place our crumbling 10/10 school? You may instead ask – why was Woodridge spared, and Wilburton was not? Again, BSD has left Jing Mei parents as the unfortunate, and perhaps unwilling holders of toxic facts: We *did* promise Jing Mei a shinny new school did we not? And 5 year old Wilburton is so much nicer and shinier than Woodridge…
Toxic division and resentment is an inevitable consequence of segregation.
Public schools are a public resource and no more belong to Bellevue’s Mandarin speaking population than it is does to any other – no matter your claim to majority status. Sorry – support for equality and equity is not Asian hate. Its the law. And a good law.
ALL of this was entirely avoidable – there were several paths possible to satisfy both the Mandarin speaking community and retain our neighborhood school. We could have waited a year and see our present uptick in enrollment – something that other districts knew would happen, parents knew would happen, but our ringer demographer from Colorado mysteriously did not. BSD could have moved Mandarin programs into neighborhood schools – something it should have done a decade ago.
Most of all, BSD mis-stepped by failing to treat parents as real stakeholders in this closure process. Perhaps its worried that real open debate here would lead to a divisive, toxic mess if parents thought they had a say? Perhaps. Mostly though, the evidence I see from many directions is that it is pushing hard on choice programs, and that the fate of Jing Mei was internally determined in mid 2022. I suspect what Jing Mei families wanted had nothing to do with it.
Pete Davidson asked on NextDoor – so you want a say in every decision the district makes? Well — if my neighbors can have a say on whether I can build a garage and the process takes 2 years, yes … it should not be possible to decide to close a school in 3 months. And if someone wanted to moved a boys school into Jing Mei, I’m sure you’d want the same.
Again, all these are BSD’s failings.
Don’t hate Jing Mei families. I don’t. They have my sympathy. Help them through the shameful situation BSD has placed them in.
Stuart, given you and Tim’s increasingly anti-Jing Mei rhetoric that is becoming more and more unhinged, I am happy to refer both of you to the district’s campus security to ensure you never set foot on Jing Mei’s campus. It is clear you have a very personal vendetta against the school and community.
My dude. Can you PLEASE provide an example of Stu’s “unhinged” comments? He’s supporting equity and calling out the district, not Jing Mei, it’s families, or the Chinese community at large. He could not be any more clear about this. I’ve followed your comments here and on NextDoor and am actually concerned for your well being of you’re misinterpreting his efforts at an open dialog so egregiously. We all wants best for our kids. Chill.
He has stoked dangerous anti-Asian rhetoric that is putting JM families in danger. Claiming JM “stole” Wilburton’s school from POC. He has made claims that JM families demanded renovations in earlier posts. He also continually posts inaccurate representation of the statistics related to JM regarding languages spoken by families and claims that JM is purely “wealth foreign Chinese families”.