I have spent a number of posts writing about the attempt of the New Brunswick Ministry of Education’s attempt to revise its FSL program because it mirrors situations in provinces and communities across Canada. The situation there seemed to be typical not only of difficulties in FSL education across Canada but also typical of the way efforts to improve education are stymied by political haste and unwillingness to thoroughly understand the issue, typical of the insufficient or inadequate resources used to research every aspect of the problem and typical of the inflexibility in proposing solutions apparently set in stone. Surely solutions require brainstorming for a time before an effective answer can be found.
Let’s look at the problem New Brunswick really had:
- Very few of the students were leaving high school with any kind of fluency in their second language, French.
- The FSL teachers could not be guaranteed to be Francophone or of native-like quality in their French
- If the FSL teacher’s French was excellent, his training in teaching L2 couldn’t be guaranteed to be sufficient.
- Both the Early and Late French Immersion programs were losing large proportions of their students before the end of high school, thus making it unlikely that the bilingual goal of the programs would be achieved.
- Some parents were placing their children in Immersion in order to ensure that their children were in a stream with few learning-disabled, immigrant or disruptive students.
- In spite of the politically correct statements about French Immersion being available to all children, the truth is that there was little support for children who flounder in the program for whatever reason. If there are not enough bilingual teachers with appropriate training to teach French, it stands to reason that there would not be enough bilingual special education teachers.
- Only 80% of children of the appropriate age live within 16 kilometres of a school offering EFI. This means that one fifth of New Brunswick children entering first grade did not have the option of entering EFI. I suspect most of those are in rural populations.
Unfortunately, almost everyone who took issue with the Croll/Lee report focussed on Early French Immersion; they saw it as an attack on Early Immersion. Although they fiercely criticised the report and many of those criticisms were warranted, they missed the kernel of the problem and not only proposed no solution but did not acknowledge that there was a problem. Most critics were too busy marshalling their arguments for the reinstatement of the EFI to concern themselves with the whole picture.
So here is the problem: New Brunswick wants its Anglophone graduates to speak sufficient French to get by in a Francophone area. At this moment very few are anywhere close to modest fluency, much less bilingualism at graduation. N. B. can’t throw money at this problem to fix it.
French Immersion is a pretty good system for teaching French when the students stay in it right through to Grade 12 and when the appropriate supports are provided. Most students who start in FI, especially EFI, don’t stay the course. Of the kids eligible to start in EFI, 20% would have to travel over 16 k, making EFI an unlikely option.
There is strong evidence that the ministry has not been successful in training or finding enough near-native French speaking well-trained French teachers. This is one of the reasons that support for children floundering in FI is not available. It is also a factor frequently ignored by researchers, educators, parents and politicians. Would it be better to have fewer and better French teachers?
The other problem with FI seems to be social; it may be due to inadequate support from the ministry or class perceptions of the parents. Whatever the cause, students in difficulty in FI don’t stay in FI. With that awareness, some parents won’t even put their kids in FI, some will be gently dissuaded by well-meaning teachers and other parents will have their children transferred to the Core French program when she starts to have difficulties.
Daily lessons don’t seem to be effective in teaching FSL; we don’t know why but it doesn’t work. Students are usually bored and uninterested at best. A program called Intensive French, requiring a one off year of differentiated programming shows promise on a number of levels.
THE BOTTOM LINE: What solution will do the best job of teaching all of the children to speak sufficient French to order a meal, make an appointment with a doctor or ask for help in normal day to day life? Of course, some of the children can go much farther than that so we want a program that will provide for them, too, if we can afford it; we have to remember, though, that some things don’t just cost money, they also cost opportunities for others. This should be the bottom line for every ministry of education in the country and every Anglophone board of education in the country.
THE SOLUTION will require the wisdom of Solomon and parents who are willing to put other people’s children’s needs first. It will require politicians who call it like it is and researchers who look beyond one narrow area of research. It will require unions who will acknowledge that although their mandate is to protect jobs, they are teachers first and want what provides a good education for students. We have the capacity to provide for the educational needs of our children but not the wants of all the stakeholders. It is time for the adults to act like adults.