Ideas on a local indigenous language diffusion policy for the Ontario Ministry of Education?

Essentially, it attempts to cater to different groups:

The libertarian right: They are often concerned with more freedom of choice of school and in school, and this does grant it to some degree.

The libertarian left: They might be concerned with more equality between cultural groups and so more freedom of language in school could answer to that.

The universalist left: They are often concerned with language and other human rights at the international or global levels, at the UN, the EU, international aviation, etc., and so it takes their concerns into account too by acknowledging the need for a means of international communicaiton that could be learnt by all and not just native speakers of the dominant language and elites.

The moderate left: They tend to be concerned with ensuring that all members of the community can partake equally of the country's economic and cultural opportunities. The focus on local indigenous and sign languages aims to answer to those.

Traditionalist conservatives: They'd not be too happy with this, but could rejoice in that they could still choose to go to a public school to learn English and French and not have to participate in these changes if they don't want to.

Anyhway, this is just my preliminary attempt, and I hope others here could possibly polish it up a bit.

Another problem I see with the proposal I made above is that it woudl fly in the face of Official Bilingualism, based on teh premise of two founding nations and no akcnowledgement of the First Nations. Though this could possibly be counterbalanced by an effective advertising campaing pointing out the flaws of Official Bilingualism and educating about international conventions in support of defending the lcoal indigenous languages. Education about the political history of the OLA and how it was born out of pure political pragmatism and nothing more could help counter this too.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

All I have to say to these proposals is that you're not going to introduce vouchers through this back-door if I have any say at all in it, so you'd better start re-thinking your plan.

Fair enough. I was thinking of vouchers as part of an incentive to promote the teaching of the local indigenous language while also making it more acceptable to the right. Of course if you have other ideas on how to introduce such incentives into the system while still making it at least somewhat  acceptable, to the right, I'm all eyes.

Just as another brainstorm, I could see a voucher system limited to state-owned schools only, but with children who are learning a local indigenous language being given a voucher of greater value, possibly allowing the school to introduce an additional bonus course for that child. The introduction of a voucher system of that sort, even if it doesn't allow for private school participation, might still work in presenting some kind of incentive. Alternatively, one exception besides state-owned schools might be schools owned by the local First Nation off-reserve?

Again, this is just a brainstorm. But I would ask that anyone who comments in this thread offer a solution and not just a criticism.

Here I just got permission to quote one response from a poster in another thread, his only stipulation being that I point out that he is a multi-lingual person:

"Speaking only for myself, I would resent any portion of my taxes being spent on the teaching of any second language but French in the province of Ontario, based on the fact that only English and French are official languages of Canada. I would make an exception for the teaching of Latin and Greek as credit courses to better understand the history and roots of our official languages. I would not expect it to be mandatory for the teaching of Latin and Greek to result in full 'second language' fluency in those tongues.

I would not object to the teaching of other languages in Ontario schools, just having my taxes paying for it. If it were paid for as an afterschool course by voluntary subscription of interested parents ONLY I would have no objection to loaning the school's resources as a meeting centre.

If the proposal became a sufficiently serious enough issue it would definitely affect my choices at the ballot box. "

Unionist wrote:

Who's winning the debate? I haven't been following this thread much.

What debate? I threw it out more as a brainstorm than a debate, trying to get a feel for what kind of proposal might be at lest acceptable to the right and the left.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

All I have to say to these proposals is that you're not going to introduce vouchers through this back-door if I have any say at all in it, so you'd better start re-thinking your plan.

By the way, are you opposed to vouchers per se, or to the involvement of private schools in the system? Though I did intend private-school involvement in the OP and think I'd mentioned it explicitely if I rememebr correctly, I don't see why a voucher system would necessarily have to involve private schools. For instance, it could allow only schools owned by the Ontario Provincial MoE, of a neighbouring province's MoE (such as Quebec's if, for example a school just across the provincial border from a family's home happens to offer lessons in the local indigenous language or a sign language while the school on the Ontario side didn't), maybe just making the requirement that if it's not an Ontario MoE school, then it must meet the standards described in the OP. Perhaps an exception could be made for schools owned by the local indigenous community too, whether on or off reserve, to be considered as 'publicly owned' in that it is owned by the local First Nation.

Anyway, these are just some ideas.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I'm fairly certain I don't want to be quoted at mapleleafweb, thanks anyway. There's a reason why I post here and not there, and I'm not much interested in attracting the attention of some of those folks. They're always rather disruptive when they show up around here.

Fair enough, and no problem. Feel free to read them and respond here if you like.

And again, I'd be willing to abandon the idea of private school participation, or even vouchers altogether, if some other kind of incentive programme could be thought up that would be at least acceptable to the right and the left and that would still prove at least somewhat effective in promoting local indigenous languages. From what I've gathered so far at Mapleleafweb is that learning local indigenous languages is a wate of time.

At Freedominion.ca, reaction to UN resolutions was less than positive, so I guess the rationale would have to be changed, perhaps referring to Canadian legislation (though that could be problematic too since it favours French and English to the exclusion of indigenous, sign, and other languages). I'd found the same response at a forum for the Christian Heritage Party. It seems they were mainly concerned with mandatory sex education, etc., but otherwise didn't seem to mind the language bit too much at least.

Anyway, those are just my preliminary observations. So from what I gather so far, the main objections have to do with vouchers, reference to UN resolutions and declarations, and forcing children to learn local indigenous languages (though that last one is somewhat non-applicable seeing that state-owned schools would be exempt from having to offer the local indigenous language anyway, unless it was referring to it as an excessive restriction on private schools participating in a voucher programme, but then nothing woudl be forcing a private school to participate if it didn't want to). As for Un resolutions, perhaps other arguments could be used instead to handle those who oppose the UN. As for vouchers, well, maybe charter schools? Charter schools would still be state-owned while still granting school choice.

Erik Redburn wrote:

The political right is deeply opposed to the preservation of any native culture Machjo, from everything I've seen, and I wouldn't put much stock in what's said on mainstream chat sites.   I would think existing schools on or near reserves are the only way to go when most FN are still too marginilized and poor to send their kids to private schools, although theres nothing to stop improvements at these schools too if more resources were made available.  

 I agree with you that, in general, possibly with some exceptions, the political right in Canada cound't care less for the preservation of indiginous languages, though from my experiments with proposing different ideas to them in forums, it does appear that some on the political right are willing to at least compromose through some kind of trade-offs between, for example, allowing for more private schools in exchange for more incentives in the system to learn the local indigenous language among all those interested. The question then is how far is either side willing to compromise. Is it possible to meet at some point in the middle to save the local indigenous languages?

In the end though, you may be right that, politically, the best we might be able to hope for would be to preserve local indigenous languages on-reserve or near reserve and mostly through token policies but nothing particularly concrete. I don't know, but I hope Im wrong and that there is some kind of compromise that both the right and the left could possibly agree to.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Well I just don't see preserving indigenous languages off reserves where there are few FN to begin with, although services could be provided where needed perhaps.  And I don't think our rightwing can be compromised with anymore, only compromised to.  Some individuals perhaps, but not enough to move them as a group.  

Actually, I was thinking not so much about the First Nations themselves, but rather making their language and culture more accessible to non-FN who'd like to learn their language too.

But I'm starting to think I'm going about this the wrong way. Initially, I wasn't so interested in the issue from a political angle. I figured the greatest contribution anyone could make to the preservation of the local indigenous language would be simply to go the the bookshop, by the books needed, and teach yourself. The problem with that though is that the necessary books didn't even exist, or at least nothing of the quality we'd find for self-instruction books for other languages. Finally, I'd contacted various FN organizations themselves only for them to confirm that those resources really don't exist.

So then I thought about trying to promote the FN languages in schools, thus increasing their value in society and thus likely to eventually create the needed books. But as you're pointing out, it's not likely the right would go for it.

Now, I'm thinking that one possible solution that the right might go for would be for the government to simply provide the necessary funding to write and publish quality self-instruction books and dictionaries wherever the private sector has failed to do so already, thus allowing those of us who do want to learn the local indigenous language but can't except through self-instruciton owing to work schedules, etc. could finally do so. If the right opposed that, then maybe a reasonable trade off would be to grant each public school the freedom to teach the second-language of its choice, as is the case in the UK and Hungary, etc. thus making it possible for the local indigenous language and sign languages etc to compete with French in school, though granted again this is an extremely modest goal not likley to achive many results in the school system. But as a trade off, if it convinced the right to support funding for the production of quality self-instruction materials for local indigenous languages, then it would allow the less political among us who do care about FN languages and cultures to then just go out to buy the books and teach ourselves the language. Perhaps money currenty being directed at Official Bilingualism could be rediverted to this project, thus again making the right willing to accept it, even if only with the attitude that whether that money is spent on Official Bilingualism or FN languages, it's the same to them.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Why the constant need to pander to the right, Machjo? I can assure you that they feel no need to pander to you.

Perhaps. But no short answer. to your question.

In the past, I wasn't quite as political as I've become lately and in some ways I'd like to go back to my less political nature. Generally speaking, I'd tended to engage through lifestyle changes, such as not eating meat or taking a bicycle or walking etc. to protect the environment, learning Esperanto as a hedge against linguistic imperialism, etc, and all of these things could be done apolitically.

With FN languages, it's different: An effective non-political way to develop FN languages would obviously be to simply learn one. But if the resources don't exist, then the non-political option becomes difficult, and so we start to look for a political option. I suppose the best solution might be the most direct one: the government provides the funding to write and publish quality self-instruction books and dictionaries for the local indigenous languages, after which it would be possible to just go out and buy the book at teach ourselves without needing to engage so much politically. However, to do so would require broad support, and that could mean having to 'pander' to the right.

triciamarie wrote:

Even French is not taught until Grade 4 in Ontario, and then very little. I think that's too late, and am trying to start up a French club for primary grades on Friday evenings at our local school. I'm talking to a potential teacher and will then have to work on access to the school. I'll be paying for the teacher and any supplies, and maybe collecting a small fee, if that doesn't conflict with the Community in the Schools program.

I will probably have to pay for the classroom too, unless I can swing something with the parent council or principal. However I note there is free access for many non-profit groups at 150 designated "priority" community schools throughout Ontario, including on Manitoulin, in North Bay and Mattawa among other northern (Algonquin?) communities.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/community/

Here in Guelph we also have a free Saturday morning international languages program offered out of the Catholic board. They do not teach French; I suppose that may have something to do with the teachers' union. There are also no FN languages on the list, but the sense I get from them is that apart from French, they will add any language as long as there are interested students and an available teacher. They are offering about 20 languages presently. They also do summer camps.

http://www.ilp-guelph.org/history.html

I'm happy to have read everthing you said except for one point. Except for that one point, it's all good news.

That point has to do with the ideal age at which to learn a second-language. There is plenty of research that proves that on an hour-per-hour basis, older children and adults learn a second-language faster than younger children. The only point on which small children have a real advantage is in pronunciation (and that, if the teacher is pronouncing it correctly), and even then it can be compensated for in older children through clear explanations of how to produce the sound. Just read Formaggio (University of Rome 3, 1993), Frank (Frankfurt University), and another one (I forget the author's name, but I'll get it this weekend. I just don't have the book on me right now, but it's a guide book for language teachers published by Cambridge University Press), among others.

The myth is perpetuated by the apparent ease with which a child learns his mother tongue. What we forget though is that that child is also learning the language perhaps up to 12 hours a day, has teachers all around him, including his parents, siblings, shop assistants, bus drivers, day care workers, restaurant servers, neighbours, friends, TV, radio, etc. etc. etc., not to mention necessity as a significant motivator. None of this can be reproduced in a classroom setting. It has been proven long ago that the 'natural' learning method is highly inefficient and has long been abandoned by most teachers. It works fine when everyone is your teacher, you're naturally motivated (the survival motive), and you're exposed to the language 12 hours a day. That is not the case in a foreign-language classroom setting where you have one teacher teaching you the language perhaps 3 times a week for 40 minutes each time, and with no exposure whatsoever to the language outside of the classroom. (immersion programmes are an exception to this precisely because they involve complete immersion, but they are more expensive owing to the quality of teacher needed, and their  results are not reproducible in simple French as a foreign language programme except for the most motivated)

We may take the example of an expat businessman, but again, remember that his working environment may be in English even if he's located in China because it's an international business, which eliminates the 'survival' motive. Then he might study Chinese at night school for a few hours a week, but since his wife, kid, and associates all speak English, and if he's located in a more cosmopolitan part of town where some locals speak English too, his exposure along with the survival motive will be reduced considerably. His child, on the other hand, is exposed to the language throughout the school day, his friends speak little to no English, many of his teachers might not know English, and so his exposure and motivation are much greater.

On an hour by hour basis though, since the father likely has a stronger grounding in the grammar and etymology of his mother tongue than his son does, he can use that to his advantage, whether consciously or not, to learn his second language faster. So on an hour by hour basis, the father is likely to be more successful than the son even if the son is more successful overall. Successful second-language teachers use the learner's mother tongue knowledge and life experience, etc. to his advantage, recognizing that learning a second language can and must be done more efficiently than the mother tongue.

Looking at it that way, if we're looking at maximum use of taxpayer dollars in the second-language classroom, it would make more sense to simply add more teaching hours for the second-language in highschool, even if it means having to add more school days to the year, than to extend the learning of the language to elementary school, or at least the younger grades of elementary school. From the standpoint of efficiency, it's generally recommended for most languages to start at the age of ten, and for easier languages at the age of eight, if it's taught as a foreign language strictly in a classroom setting.

Now if time and money are  not an issue, then and only then can we consider at an earlier age. One exception of course is in the family, since then the parents can expose the child to the language all day long and can give their child their undivided attention, unlike in a large classroom environment.

So my guess is that the MoE is well aware of the research base in this field, and that likely has influenced its decision to start teaching the language at a later age. Personally, I'd rather their budgetting decisions be made on the basis of research and not popular belief, so though I can criticize the MoE on many fronts, their waiting to teach the language at a later age is a wise budgetting decision in my opinion. If they have more money, they can always add more days to the school year for older children and expand second-language teaching hours there rather than wasting it on children whose knowledge of the mother tongue itself is not yet fully developed.