Quebec has right to force immigrants to learn French, says NDP...

Infosaturated wrote:

Machjo wrote:

Statistics prove you wrong. According to StatsCan 2006, the majority of French Canadians fail to learn their second language well, as is the case with English Canadians learning French.

You are echoing the information I presented. The current school system in Quebec is failing everyone, French and English. A 50% rate of failure to graduate from high school has very serious ramifications for the future. English Quebeckers are achieving French/English bilingual ability at higher rates than the French but it remains true that many English students take half their courses in French and yet still do not feel comfortable speaking French when they leave school. This is not because French is overwhelmingly difficult to learn.

I think it's time to look at the facts. In the publication 'Interkompreniĝi, sed kiel?' by Elizabeta Vilisics-Formaggio, published in 1993 (ISBN 83-85033-07-3), the author, commenting on the results of a survey of high school students spread out through a number of EU countries (translation mine), in reference to the goals they intend to achieve via their second language:

Quote:

Do the participants feel linguistically ready to achieve the desired goals?

31% of them answered positively. The most certain were Germans: more than half of them agreed. 3% of the participants were uncertain. 66% declared that their language knowledge does not suffice to satisfy interlinguistic communication. The most significant of these groups were Hungarians and Italians. 81% ad 79% of them respectively were unsatisfied with their communicative abilities.

In a book published by Ulrich Matthias in 2003, we read:

Quote:

 In 2001 a German teacher named Michael Scherm estimated that only 5 -7% of Germans can express themselves well in English. Similar research in 1989 came up with much the same result. A survey by an advertising agency which invited Europeans to translate sound recordings of three English phrases into their native languages concluded that "the truly correct understanding of English [in Western Europe] fell well below our most pessimistic expectations" being limited to about 6% of the population.

And going back to Formaggio in an teachers' guide she published in 1995, we read (translation mine, but underlines for emphasis hers):

Quote:

A few years ago, I took part in an international teachers' group that studied the abilities and opinions of students with regards to language learning. We collected the responses of 2276 youths between the ages of 15 and 19, Italians, Catalans, Germans and Ukrainians. At the time of the study, all had studied one foreign national language for an average of 5.5 years. 58% learnt a second  or even third foreign language too in accordance with the programme requirements of their respective schools. About half of the respondents took elective language courses too. The majority of these learners had already had a chance to speak with a foreigner. Their experience in these cases was unsatisfactory: 1346 youths out of 1980 declared themselves unsatisfied owing to difficult communication. Rating their language abilities, they considered themselves ill-prepared to deal with themes any more complex than idle chit chat and to establish friendships with those their own age, even though most of them desired this.

I'd recently received an invitation to a professional convention of language teachers (Teaching & Learning, Torino), in which was pointed out, among other things, that notable progress in the teaching of foreign languages with regards to teaching methods and tools available in the free market, but that "the results achieved in the schools is often disillusioning and discouraging for the teachers themselves".

I've cited only two facts, but the problem is widely acknowledged in every country. We cannot explain this away to laziness on the part of pupils or in competence on the part of the teachers. I believe that the chief reason for this failure is rooted in the object of study itself: languages are difficult. To achieve a satisfactory level, we would need to invest a great deal of time. About 2000 hours of study, says Claude Piron. Cato Lomb asserts that in the high school years, we would need to devote a minimum of 6-8 lessons a week plus at least 4 additional hours of practice per language. Knowing the competence of Piron and Lomb, highly qualified interpreters and translators, authors of many works on the subject of interlinguistic communication, I do not doubt their opinions.

I'm certainly open to your sources for the claim that languages are easy. Please, take your time, because you'll need it. And all the best of luck in your quest.

Infosaturated wrote:

Machjo wrote:

... Since neither English nor French are particularly easy to learn, therefore it woudl make sense to choose one or the other to serve as the common language. In Quebec, a logical enough solution to to adopt French for the purpose.

I agree. I am in favor of the language laws in Quebec requiring the use of French as the working language in businesses and in protecting the primacy of the French language on signs etc. I don't think there should be an English school board. It is not at all necessary to have the goal of perfect fluency in both French and English. But, most people of average intelligence are perfectly capable of achieving basic functionality in a second language.

Sure. As I'd mentioned above, if you can give them a good 2000 hours of instruction, you;re right. And where will we get the money, let alone the qualified teachers, for that enterprise nationwide? Are we to lead the world in this and show them how much we can outspend the rest of the world to reach national bilingual success where all other countries have failed? Can you point to any national model that has worked?

Quote:

I think there should be one school system and that it should be primarily French. I have studied educational pyschology and second language teaching. There are key points at which infants and young children must be introduced to the sounds of foreign languages even if they don't actually learn the language at that time.  Infants learn to distinguish sounds in the first six months of life.  It is not impossible to learn as an older child, or as an adult, but it is far far more difficult.  Sound recognition as well as pronunciation correlates to mother tongue because our ears are trained to hear the sounds of that particular language, and our mouths learn to formulate those sounds. Children who learn two languages from birth generally master both with ease.

Clearly you skipped a few chapters. Here is a quote from Penny Ur from page 286 of 'A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory' (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 7-5600-2050):

Quote:

Many conventional assumptions about differences between children and adults in language learning may turn out, when subjected to careful examination or research to be not quite so obvious or inevitably true as they seem...

Owing to the length of the quotes I'll just summarize some of them here in my own words. First off, she refers to research that debunks the myth that on an hour for hour basis, younger children learn a second language faster than older children and adults do. In fact, some evidence shows the opposite to be true. She likewise debunks the myth that there a second language must be taught early in some critical period, again debunked.  There appears not to be any critical period. This likely comes from research showing that younger children can learn pronunciation faster than older children and adults. Remember though that pronunciation is but one extremely limited facet of second language learning, and one that can be easily overcome by a clear explanation of how to produce the sound. These are just some of the myths she sets out to debunk in her book.

Then going back to Formaggio again, in her book refered to above published in 1995 (again, translation mine):

Quote:

If we can't gain time horizontally, then let's try vertically: instead of more lessons in high school, let's start teaching foreign languages earlier, in elementary school! This solution has been chosen in many countries already.

At first sight, this solution appears really good, as children do learn to speak various languages with amazing ease. We find the best examples in immigrant families.: while the parents long, or even forever, remain incompetent in the new language, the children often assimilate it just by imitating local playmates. Another example is the children of an inter-ethnic couple. It often occurs that they can speak in either language while the parents themselves remain incapable of communicating in each other's languages without regular errors. So it is true that the younger one learns a second language, the more easily he'll reach the necessary competence in its practical use.

But not always!

The theory works only if the child is immersed in the concerned language environment or if they live with someone who uses the second language with them regularly.

Classroom conditions are a whole other thing. (One school year for our pupils for 3 hours of second-language learning each week is equal to 8-10 days for a child exposed to the language for 10 to 12 hours each day!). During the limited time available, the teacher must recreate a natural learning environment for a whole group of kids. Too big a task! The results are generally very modest: a few memorized chants and rhymes, a few social conversational formula, and a few expressions relating to a few topics. An obvious advantage is that they have the chance to learn foreign pronunciations quickly owing to their imitative abilities (an advantage only if the teacher's pronunciation is perfect).

Younger children receiving foreign language instruction do possess knowledge that other children their age who have not studied the language don't. But, since this instruction has strict limits, children who do learn the same language at a later age can achieve the same results in a shorter time. The differences that may appear significant at first, are quickly narrowed, and sometimes even eliminated.

Considering that I have found many books on the subject that have debunked the myth you are now defending, I must conclude that you have not read many books on the subject.

Quote:

Another important concept is motivation. People learn speech in order to communicate something they want to communicate and that motivation is intrinsic not extrinsic. That is, teaching math in French isn't as effective as showing a movie popular with a particular age group. Teaching a five year old to say "want to play ball?" is far more effective than teaching a five year old to say 1 plus 1 is 2. Nevertheless, teaching a five year old to say "want to play ball?" is still useless if that child doesn't know someone English with whom they want to play ball. There is no communicative purpose under those conditions.

As you ought to be aware, motivation is an important part of any teacher training course, and has been for many years. So when do you expect the statistics to improve? I'm sure you're aware of the adage that to repeat the same act hoping to get a different result is sheer lunacy.

Quote:

Recently a 3 year pilot project of selected students (50/50 French/English) experimented with alternating French and English instruction for half the year each of the three years. It was very successful.

Now this is something that makes me livid with Canadian linguistic research. We conduct the research under perfect conditions and then wonder why it doesn't transfer to the mainstream. Your example of the 50/50 above is among these lunacies. Of what practical use is this research, paid for with our tax dollars, to an average linguistically homogeneous school as is the case in the vast majority of local communities across Canada? So are we to pay the plane ticket tor relocate entire populations to replicate these results in schools across the country? We find the same with Canadian research in bilingual schools. Sure the rate of success is absolutely astounding, but let's not forget the money put into hiring fluently bilingual teachers for every subject. Good luck achieving that nationwide. Foreign schools that have adopted this Canadian model should tell us something. I remember a Cameroonian professor telling me how this Canadian bilingual model was replicated with amazing success in a few elite private schools in the country. I'd found the same in China with one teacher raving about how all the children in the elite private school she was teaching at were all coming out fluent in English and Chinese thanks to the fully bilingual staff that the school could afford.

It's no surprise that countries concerned about universal as opposed to elite bilingualism don't give this Canadian research so much as a first glance. It might be fine for private elite schools with the funds to replicate these research conditions, but such research is useless if applied in mainstream schools with access to the funding a typical public school has access to. From that standpoint, we really ought to be looking at the European research that is conducted in average schools, intended to find solutions that are applicable across the board and not under ideal conditions.

Quote:

Setting up the ideal circumstances for second language learning is impossible but it is not impossible to get closer. The practice of preventing the teaching of English prior to 3rd grade is the worst possible policy.  Doing preschool and kindergarden or even grade 1 in the second language would be ideal.  Most important of all, encouraging animosity and resentment towards a language group sets up a major barrier to learning that language. It also encourages social strife between groups and a garrison mentality.

While I agree with your last sentence, again, how is it that you have studied pedagogy and yet have not ever encountered rebuttal to these myths. There are reasons why public schools make these decisions, which are a combination of economic, linguistic, and other factors. Second-language education policy ought to be based on hard research based on typical real life circumstances and not educational mythology. What worries me more than an average citizen being unaware of these facts is that supposedly trained teachers are buying into these myths themselves.

Infosaturated wrote:

Machjo wrote:

I'm certainly open to your sources for the claim that languages are easy. Please, take your time, because you'll need it. And all the best of luck in your quest.

I never claimed that languages are easy.  I said that the elite of Quebec manage to master both languages and I don't think they are any smarter than the rest of us.  I said that exposing infants to language sounds dramatically increases their ability to master the language even if they don't actually start learning it until later in life.  I said that it is contrary to what we know about language learning to legally prevent a second language from being taught until after 3rd grade because the later a child starts the more difficult it is for them to learn it.  We would be better off teaching it from preschool to grade 1 and stopping than teaching it from grade 2 to grade 6.

The best doorway to language learning is the use of intrinsic motivation including exposing children to one another's languages through play and alternately through culture. Teaching French to English children through teaching subjects such as math and history in French has proven far less successful than people thought it would because it still doesn't achieve intrinsic communicative factors. Exposing them to the same TV programs their peers are watching with comprehension supports would be more effective especially if they were able to interact with French native speakers at the same time.

My apologies if I may have misunderstood your claims about second languages being easy to learn. However, to compare an average public school limited in its funding to what the state can afford, to an elite private school with access to considerably more funding, is like comparing apples to oranges. In addition to this, you continue to promote myths about children learning second languages more quickly than adults even though they've been debunked in I've lost count how many textbooks.

And again, you continue basing your theories on idealistic hypotheses. How likely is it for an average French-speaking kid in Roberval to be able to just go out and play with the local English speakers?And how do you propose the government force parents to impose English-language television in the home. They have access to that already and aren't tuning in. So do we legislate so many hours of English TV per day? And for all these supports you talk abut, seeing we're already short of qualified teachers, where do you propose we find more teachers for this? Sure we can train more, but isn't there a more efficient solution? Could we not learn from the direction the Europeans have been moving in the last decade or so, whereby we apply the latest research in the classroom rather than just flattering our egos with these ideal-conditioned experiments in Canada's bilingual schools?

Anyway, I think the evidence above shows conclusively that establishing universal bilingualism in English and French is beyond the pale of practical reality. This will forever be limited to those who have either the aptitude or the resources to learn them both. As for the rest of the population, expecting them to get much out of their English and French as a second language courses is sheer folly. Stats Can 2006 proves that.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:

I agree with this move since it will help promote a more culturally unified Quebec; though I'd like to see an exception made for local indigenous languages.

I don't understand how you see indigenous languages being affected, Machjo.

Even without special protection for indigenous communities, this would still benefit the indigenous population too. After all, right now let's say an Innu from central Quebec would need to learn Innu to preserve his culture, French to communicate with most Quebecers, and English to communicate wither other Quebecers and the rest of Canada, and possibly a fourth language to communicate with other peoples.

Under the NDP's proposal, more Quebecers would know French, thus ensuring that that same Innu person, should he fail to learn any language other than Innu and French, would have access to a larger population for friendship, trade, accessing economic resources, etc. than he does now with the same two languages.

For symbolic reasons though, I would like to see FN languages beput on an equal footing with French and English. I realise this owuld be politicaly difficult and so was really just mentioning it as a desire. But like I said, even without this special right, it could still benefit the Innu none-the-less by allowing them to communicate with more people across Quebec without having to know English.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:

 If we're serious about research in second languages, the government should stop funding such research in cities like Montreal or in schools with half native English-speaking children and half French-speaking children, or well-funded bilingual schools, and instead establish a research department somewhere in central Quebec and perhaps another in Western Canada, where the conditions are more reflective of the reality in most of the country rather than under ideal conditions.

Your focus make no sense. Isolated rural populations do not represent the majority, and are dwindling in numbers. Multilingual, multicultural urban centres hold the majority of our population, and are growing.

I've tried to speak French with random passers-by just out of curiosity in Orleans, one of Ottawa's most French-speaking communities, and was surprised to find many couldn't understand me, politely telling me that they don't speak French.

I'd also tried similar in Quebec city once out of curiosity with English, and found similar. So if many in Ottawa cannot speak French, and many in Quebec city cannot speak English, and both of these are capital cities, and even StatsCan 2006 agrees with my assessment, then what gives you the idea that the majority of Canadians are bilinguallly French and English?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Machjo wrote:

You might also want to skim through Graham Fraser's 'I don't speak French', available at least at the Ottawa Public Library. 

I believe I recommended that book to you.

Though I don't remember, you might very well have. He is a strong supported of official bilingualism, but also acknowledges some of tis flaws. Though I did not agree with him on many points, I still learnt. I mainly agreed with him when presenting the problems, but tended to disagree with his proposed solutions, which seem for the most part to just poor more money into it.

Quote:

He likewise acknowledges how many students, even if they do become bilingual, soon forget their second language after graduation.

How many are you claiming he 'acknowledges'? Rather few, in my recollection.[/quote]It's in the library again, so I'd have to go back and check it out again when I have the chance. But my own observations (and I've lived all over Canada) would still suggest a poor rate of success. Try to function in French in Victoria. Good luck.

But getting back to the thread, I see it as a positive step in acknowledging that Quebec needs a common language and that expecting province-wide bilingualism is just not possible. You are certainly fre to disagree with the NDP on this all you want but on this point at least I see the NDP going in the right direction.

And just another point about those urban enclaves. According to StatsCan (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo16-eng.htm), 8% of Torontonians know both official languages. So I suppose you're right. Toronto would be just as fine a place as any to establish a research base, but in a typical school of course and not the most funded school in town.

George Victor wrote:

LTJ:

"Your focus make no sense. Isolated rural populations do not represent the majority, and are dwindling in numbers. Multilingual, multicultural urban centres hold the majority of our population, and are growing."

 

And we must hope that they do not become cultural enclaves of extremist religioius or political opinion in a shrunken, increasingly poorer world.(Which is not to join in the defeatist message that our attempts to teach a second language within public school systems that are not properly funded are just going through some singular political game. My daughter - and now grandaughter - got lucky in their place of residence and had access to such a school. They must be hugely expanded in number.) 

So you're proposing we establish immersion schools from coast to coast to coast, something that no other country can afford, but somehow Canada will pull through? What makes you think Canada can achieve such a grandiose task where no other country has yet succeeded? Is Canada somehow beyond the rules that constrain other countries' education budgets?

George Victor wrote:

Nope. The grandiose I'll leave to you, M.  But I believe that the schools should be available - as much as practically feasible - to kids who want to take part in the larger IT world that they are entering. Leave behind the mean world of their parents, if you will.  Not all will want to embark, but more can be made available in many areas. And I can see that our ideas of opportunity for youngsters diverge radically. Just talking to the European kids whenever visiting there one comes to appreciate how badly we let down the kids of Canuckistan.

You seem to be confounding things here. How did IT come into all of this. Certainly I can agree with increased school funding per se, and do agree that we need to improve the quality of education. Unless I'd misunderstood you, I though you meant making French immersion available in all English-medium schools across Canada and English-immersion schools available to all French-medium schools across Canada. That kind of thing does not exist in Europe. Sure they invest more than we do in second-language learning, but are also honest enough to admit that most fail to learn their second language and they have begun to experiment with various alternative strategies. Unless you can prove me wrong, I'm not aware of any country in the EU or anywhere else in the world that intends to provide sufficient government funding to ensure accessibility to immersion language programmes in all their schools. In Europe, such programmes are relegated to elite private schools where they belong.

George Victor wrote:

How does IT NOT come into everything, M? It's how individuals communicate around our social institutions. Your world is a static construct, a product of your predilection for statistics. Again, I have NOT said immersion should be made available in all schools. Again, preference and demand would have to be there. And the European model is successful enough to produce a working population, which is not a bad objective in these deprived times  Private schools simply promulgate and maintain the culture of inequality and are not the sole means by which Europe communicates.

Sorry, but when you typed IT in uppercase letters, I though you meant internet technologies. Again, many European models are of high quality and perhaps we ought to increase funding. What I'm saying is why would we provide more funding for some schools than for others? Where is the equality there? If one school has access to this, then all schools ought to be given equal access. All or none. Seeing that we could not afford it for all, how about prodiving equal funding for all schools, and let each school decide for itself whether to introduce immersion programmes or not. This way all citizens can benefit equally from school funding.