More FSL resources approach problematic
GUEST EDITORIAL — The following is part four of a multi-part guest editorial by New Brunswick Education Minister Kelly Lamrock in response to the ongoing controversy over the government's announced plans for teaching french as a second language in New Brunswick.
The "more resources" approach has some daunting problems.
First, even advocates of early French Immersion acknowledge that bilingual resource teachers, teacher assistants and other specialists don't exist to be recruited - even with infinite resources. Some suggest that the problem can be solved by team interventions, or training more people now. But even Immersion advocates say that developing a plan would have to start now and will take years, maybe three, maybe five, maybe eight. That's a long time to wait, and a lot of kids to lose in the meantime.
Second, we don't know if the "resources" behind such a plan (which advocates admit hasn't been developed yet) exist. We want to be clear — this government has spent and will spend much more on education every year. But any plan must work within the resources one is likely to have. And the resources must exist in a system that also has to improve low scores in literacy, math and science, restore trades, art, music and physical education, keep salaries of teachers competitive, build new schools to replace old ones, and add evaluations so we know if what we do works.
Advocates would have to show me a plan that could work in the context of budget increases of four per cent to eight per cent a year — large government programs don't go up more than that. And since no one's developed a concrete plan in all the years these issues have been known, it's hard to say that will happen.
Third, advocates of the "more resources" school have to contend with this question: if it is that simple, why hasn't it been done before? Adding resources is politically painless. Previous ministers and their governments included many bright and sincere people. If there really are people who can be added in an affordable way, what was the barrier?
Fourth, it is unclear that parents of kids who struggle would want their children in a total immersion environment if they are having difficulty with language skills. I realize some educators believe this is not a correct response. These educators point out, with reason, that early exposure to language is good for learning a language, and that even though children in Early Immersion have some lag time in gaining proficiency in their first language, with a good foundation in one language, the other inevitably is learned quickly.
Yet for the same reason, it is not irrational for parents to prefer to put struggling children in a familiar language setting. After all, just as a good foundation in French helps one learn English, a good foundation in English accelerates the subsequent learning of French. If children don't get a foundation in one language at an early age, they are likely to always struggle in their first language (and really reduce their chances of learning a second).
Thus, to bet upon the "more resources" solution requires one to bet that a plan can be developed to work around the shortage of people, that this undeveloped plan will really be paid for by government and not sit on the shelf as a pipe dream, and that once these resources are in place enough parents will choose Immersion so that streaming won't be so pronounced.
This would be the easiest option, politically. It also seems to be a risky bet for children.
It would also be the option we would have to try, if structural change meant sacrificing bilingualism.
Universal approach possible
Is it worth believing there could be a universal way we teach children French, just as we teach them other subjects in a universal way?
There is reason to believe we could. After all, 91 per cent of kids in late Immersion score Intermediate or above on tests, with most being Intermediate Plus. And that's taking kids who came out of Core French — which, as we know, produces results similar to no French at all.
We also know that Intensive French, which has been piloted now for five years here and is used by other provinces, generally raised children's French proficiency one full level, from Novice to Basic.
If Late Immersion works with similar consistency to Early Immersion, and if the difference between students is one level on the proficiency scale, and we raise the starting proficiency for children by a full level by having universal Intensive French, it seems to be a plausible suggestion that we can achieve the same results with Intensive French plus Late Immersion.
If we had all students learn through Intensive French in Grade 5, we would have other benefits. If 100 per cent of students arrived in middle school having French capacity, schools could provide for more conversational and social time in French, and more co-curricular and cultural activities to make French come alive.
As well, having all students have access to a quality start in French will help more students feel comfortable choosing Late Immersion. And for those who still don't choose Late Immersion, universal Intensive French will open up a Post-Intensive French model that can continue until the end of Grade 12 (instead of Grade 10, which is the end of mandatory Core French now).
Finally, the common cause of attrition in Late Immersion (the desire to have math and science courses in English) seems easier to solve than the source of attrition in Early Immersion (a lack of inclusive resources that may not exist for some time).
And, of course, a universal means of teaching French allows principals ways to distribute children of diverse learning abilities evenly in classes. It will still be necessary to have improved policies on inclusive education, improve inclusive teaching and invest resources in the MacKay Report. But a commitment to equality of learning environment is an important part of doing better in literacy, math and science.
More Opinion
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
