How immersed are our students?

"Immersion" students do their schooling in the target language. They do not live the rest of their lives in the target language, so their linguistic experience in the target language leaves out all the very real experiences that take place outside of school hours. This often results in students using a vocabulary in the target language that gets hung on native syntax rather than authentic, complete, and acculturated language that would result from an extended stint in an area where the target language was spoken. This is not to say that the French Immersion program hasn't produced benefits, particularly where students from an immersion background are called on to communicate, which they will do readily, despite the above mentioned limitations. Students from traditional second language programs rarely reach that stage, although the rare and particularly motivated student from a traditional program will build an understanding of the framework of the language and be able to fill in the vocabulary and idiom with a thoroughness and rapidity that can be perplexing to immersion students who have spent far longer absorbing their second language.
Immersion programs can rely more on passive learning than traditional SL programs because they have the luxury of time. It would be interesting (and possibly a great waste of time and resources) to do some research on how students' brains engage in immersion learning: ten years ago, Science_Vie magazine, a sort of Popular Science from France, outlined the discovery that second language learning is centered in a very different location in the brain from native language learning. It would be interesting to see if there was immersion engagement of both centers or whether only the Sl center was engaged in the learning of the target language.
Final note, and perhaps the most important: education has no price and trying to maximize the return on investment in education is a game for accountants, not educators, especially when we tally the learning that takes place out of school and compare it with the learning that takes place in school.

French Immersion...not so much.

Cool so according to the previous poster all taxpayers should kick in an extra bunch of dough so that some French Immersion student can give directions to French tourists? What about the Laotian and Shona speaking tourists?

Anyway as a graduate of the early immersion program I have to say that 12 years after graduation not a single one of my fellow grads is using their French education in a professional capacity. Some use their French on the odd trip to France or Quebec or when the hockey game is only on the French channel.

Good thing we're not tracking results and cost/benefits, there's nothing quite like cognitive dissonance.

When my children went

When my children went through their schooling they knew some kids who were in French immersion and honestly thought that they could speak French. Our daughter went to France as an exchange student for a year and as expected came back speaking French. When she returned we asked if converses with the other kids who are in French immersion and her reply was they don't know how to really speak French, they just know how to put French words together. Her other comment was that they would have to immerese themselves in a French culture for a period of time to able to speak French properly and because they have a leg-up on the vocabulary they would probably learn it easier and more quickly than she did.

Language politics

In BC at least, the popularity of French Immersion is strongly linked to parent perceptions that it is an elite version of public school, and this is largely because it excludes most ESL and special needs students. Advocates don't like to talk about it, but many parents will admit that's at least part of the reason in private.

Which is not to say that it isn't a great thing to have children growing up with extra languages -- and what better second language than French, our other official language, although Mandarin is also becoming a strong contender.

There are loads of politics surrounding support for French immersion - Shirley Bond is no fool when it comes to being on the right side of this issue - so it's probably fruitless to suggest that looking at the evidence base for the current approach is probably not a bad idea.

I experienced de facto immersion in a second language by virtue of living my early years abroad and using it both at school and at home. I can't remember more than a few words & phrases, sadly, because once I moved back into an English culture and stopped using it, I forgot it all as rapidly as I had learned it.

Same for French, which I learned in later years - I became quite fluent as long as I was using it daily, but it quickly fades with neglect.

So in summary - yes, it's great to teach extra languages and French is a natural first choice. I don't think we've settled the case for whether our current system of French immersion is the best or only way to do it, but I doubt the politics will permit an objective assessment of that.

elitism

Language learning as it stands today is for elites. It takes money to learn a second language properly. As the above poster commented, you gotta pay for a tutor when your kid starts asking you homework questions.

I'd say that the vast majority of Canadians don't know what "bilingual" means, and in general, have a very poor understanding of linguistic concepts like communicative competence, pragmatics and speech acts. There simply ought to be a course in schools on linguistics.

You cannot expect you kid to have the same fleuncy in all knowledge domains in French as in English. Bilingualism was a political policy to keep Canada from splitting apart. Saying that your kid has some "French language skills in some domains of knowledge" just doesn't sound as sexy as tossing off "Ya, my kids are bilingual."

Pros & Cons

"Name" suggested that parents select FI as a means of getting an "elite" public school program as it tends to exclude ESL and special needs students. This is certainly true. Selecting one's child's peers, having classmates who are average or better academically, with involved, better educated parents, and regular enrichment activities--what's not to like? Our FI program is located in an inner city school, which certainly helps the tone of that school. Putting a high number of positive capable achieving students in one program obviously means that the rest of the classrooms operate less optimally, though.

Name is right

As someone with french canadian heritage living in western canada, I don't understand the irrational idea of legislated bilingualism. Despite being required to take french classes in school, I have almost no fluency in french and no pathological desire to force it on my children or on the children of others. The facts are that outside of Quebec, France and its ex-colonies, English is king and is all that is required. No amount of education will change that. The positive benefits of french immersion have nothing at all to do with the french language and everything to do with an alternative educational system being a more productive atmosphere.

wannabe elitists

...parents select FI as a means of getting an "elite" public school program as it tends to exclude ESL and special needs students. This is certainly true. Selecting one's child's peers, having classmates who are average or better academically, with involved, better educated parents, and regular enrichment activities--what's not to like?

How does signing your kid up for the FI lottery mean that your child is "average or better academically" or that you are an "involved, better educated parent[s]"? If a parent wanted to put their ESL or special needs child in FI they would have no less chance of getting in than any other kid it's just not their priority, doesn't mean their kid is less academic.

Without any stats to back up your anecdotal evidence you just come off as another uninformed elitist wannabe.

BTW my child's public (no FI) school has a large proportion of ESL students and is consistently ranked one of the best elementary schools in BC.

That's exactly the point...

That's the whole point, SweetHomeKilla -- there is a widespread *perception* among parents that FI provides a more elite experience, thus the hysteria around the lotteries, despite little or no evidence to back it up.

While you're quite right that kids with special needs or ESL issues can apply, their parents generally understand that the added challenge of a second language is not a good idea, so people look around, see no visible challenges and assume it's better.

The reality, as you note, is that if all you're looking for is quality education, your kid may actually do just as well or better at the regular local school - there certainly is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and if you talk to parents acouple years after they lose out on the lottery, many are quite happy with where they've ended up. Indeed, many of the classroom strategies and extra services used to accommodate kids with extra learning needs end up enhancing learning for everyone.

layers of experience

I don't know about elitism, there's probably some justification for that, but in my family's experience there wasn't much difference in the general standard of the kids in emersion compared to any other group of kids.

A huge problem in BC schools, in my opinion, was the tendency to try and present only one level of training, then make everybody fit into it. This results in bigtime boredom for most, as it can only be done by designing the whole system to meet the lowest standard.

Being asked to perform very far below the average ability causes kids to just stop caring very much. Going to school in a language other than their own added a level of challenge that kept them from that. They managed to keep interested, do pretty well, and came out with a good working knowledge of the beautiful French language.

Nothing very elitist, necessarily, unless you think anybody who learns something you don't know must be snobbing you.

French- Canada's fossilized language

The last throes of bilingualism are hilarious to think about and I'm even willing to allow tax dollars to be wasted in French immersion programmes to highlight how out of touch the Federal govt is with the reality of living in BC and the global economy. No language is more irrelevant than French in BC for the future of children. Given the business opportunities in the US, China and the rest of Asia, languages like Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Spanish are far more economically beneficial than French.

Learning French in Canada only pleases the Mandarins in Ottawa who sold out to Quebec in every way in order to keep them in Confederation. Was it worth it? That's another argument. But, unless you want to have a stellar career in the Federal Govt or the Armed Forces or French is your heritage I'd like to know why any parent would waste their time on this language.

It has a lot to do with the future of this country

I happen to believe that French, French Immersion and the nature and character of Canadian history and the future of the country is important.

I'm not interested in dismissive comments such as the ones you made about anything east of the Alberta border.

Although I have nothing against the Chinese or China, or people speaking Chinese and learning it in school, I believe that French and the reality that the future of this country is a little more important than commercial relations with a brutal communist dictatorship.

One simply cannot ignore the kind of thing that the exchanges at Bill Tieleman’s blog – and the treatment of Tibet – not to mention the state of the Chinese ecology – illustrate.

There is more to life, the meaning of one's nationality and the future of my country than the market - and as far as the global economy is concerned, I'm more likely to be sympathetic with my Canadian brothers and sisters from central Canada (both Ontario and Quebec - not to mention the provinces to the east of Quebec) who have been thrown out of work by the false promises and siren songs of the failing global economy. I don’t believe BC is any more important than any other part of this country and I think people like you who dismiss anyone who’d not from the west are, essentially, and without prejudice, playing a dangerous and traitorous game.

You may think such things as culture and history and art are anachronisms - I think they're precisely the opposite - and we ignore their importance at our peril. They are what give our lives character, depth and meaning.

This country is in danger of becoming a faint echo of the failing experiment south of the 49th - ignoring our collective history and the value of Quebec and its institutions as cultural realities is both foolish and dangerous.

As for morals, what are you talking about?

People who are only concerned with the market too frequently find themselves on the ash-heap of history. I believe in this country and not is your facile version of what's good for your pocketbook and I believe that those parents who take French education seriously are concerned with building this nation.

I think you and those who ignore our history are indulging in a selfish effort to bring it down.

Ever wonder why Stephane Dion isn't taken seriously by English Canada?

I can tell you that the people of Quebec feel equally equivocal about politicians from the ROC who haven't taken the time or effort to master our other official language.

The knife cuts both ways.

The point is that I don't think you're being rational - as if that wasn't obvious.

evidence is in:

For hundreds of years, educators have known that the earlier one starts in school, the more easily a second language is learnt. French Immersion works, and the language skills one gets from learning one Romantic language are transferable to others.

http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/AERA_RP_Spring06.pdf

My experience with the French

My experience in Quebec was always quite pleasant. The people were very friendly and helpful when I stumbled on my French. If they knew English, they would always use it to help me. I felt very respected in every community I visited. Of course, I made sure I could appologise en Francais, "Pour quas?" You may ask. Non Parle pas le francais bien.

You poor people who wish to argue about Canadians learning French, give it a rest. Enjoy having a bilingual country with the second languae being as beautiful sounding as one finds with French. Don't be so grumpy all of the time. Life is meant to be enjoyed, like a fine French wine.

French Humour

G West- I'm just saying that Canadians should be free to learn any language they want, but in the process, they will find that Chinese, Japanese and Spanish are probably more useful than French on this side of Canada. You forgot to attack the Japanese and Spanish. After all, many people are driven by economic benefit.

If you want to talk about unfairness or impression, we can go back in history and talk about Bill 101 and Quebec's history of discrimination against English speakers. But I won't because I believe the the most important lesson you should learn from history is to forget about it. Engaging in revisionism and using past misdeeds for present judgement leads to no future.

I'm all for using my tax dollars to subsidize French immersion. Sure, I understand that the only way to keep Quebec in Confederation is to bribe them. No problem.

But, it doesn't change the fact that sitting in Vancouver, with most of our future tied to US and Asian trade, French is about as useful as teats on a bull.

Those who don't know history

Those who ignore history and culture are doomed to repeat it.

Canada is a more than just a collection of recent immigrants. And I hope it’s more than just a facile search for a bigger GDP.

French immersion education is an important part of creating and preserving a nation from on the north half of this continent…even a backward thinker like Stephen Harper has come to recognize that.

Nowhere did I ever say and I certainly don't think people should be prevented from learning as many languages as they can - most Europeans can handle four or five with alacrity.

Quebec is, in the long run, the home of about 1/4 of this country's population and it isn't just something to be jollied and bribed along. It contributes as much, and likely more than any other 25% of the nation's population base toward a viable culture, a vibrant and expanding scientific infrastructure, an superior education system, more and better significant architecture, music, scientific and manufacturing expertise and a growing economy.

Quebec contributes more, mutatis mutandis, to the privy purse than it takes out in federal funding - It certainly contributes as much (and in my view a lot more) than British Columbia has ever done. And in cultural matters we are dwarfed by Quebec – only Ontario comes close to being Quebec’s equal in that respect.

The reason this country has problems, in my view, is because a few of my countrymen exhibit the kinds of attitudes toward central and eastern Canada that yours seem typical of.

Eastern and central Canada are far from perfect, but to suggest that this province ought to care about nothing more than a failing relationship with the United States and a dysfunctional global trading association with a communist dictatorship that is poisoning its people with pollution is absurd.

BIG PROBLEM - my Canada includes Quebec - but I'm not sure it includes people who think about it, and the French language, the way you seem to.

In the end, those who insist upon putting a price tag on everything often end up broke, unhappy and alone.

By the way, I might also mention that your crudity simply makes my job a lot easier - the weakness of an argument is seldom enhanced by resorting to that kind of thing.

As a French Immersion teacher,...

I can truly say that there is a lot of misinformation out there given by parties that have a vested interest in keeping the program afloat (bad pun, I know!). School boards' employees, hired to sell the program, are not going to tell you the whole story.

1st myth:

FI is for everyone. How many students struggle to learn their first language? It is not difficult to understand that they would struggle all the more in learning a second language. Logically, learning a second language for these students will delay and damage first language acquisition. Many high end FI marketers (school board people mostly) will sweep this under the carpet, out of fear that parents' egos (and their children) might get bruised. It is a fact though.

2nd myth

French in an immersive state can be learned. Well! Yes! And no! As pointed out by a few people already, BC does NOT give a French Immersion experience. Why? It cannot! I learned English because I had to. Big difference! FI students don't need to (except to graduate). Sure! Students can speak with fluency (meaning they can communicate with little effort and understand with little effort). They acquire a lexicon as they learn about things. Great! And even though their accent is not bad (way better than core French), it is with a slight accent.

3rd myth

Many French Immersion teachers are asked to teach English (at least in Surrey) in the intermediate grades. At first they weren't, but budget pressures made it so. A few true Francophones either stayed and delivered "so-so" English or other left in disgust over the hypocrytical stand of school boards that spoke of doing the best for children, but then that gave Francophones the task of teaching English in BRITISH COLUMBIA, unbelievably as it may sound.

4th myth

Vocabulary: A lot of the books used in FI and internet sites are written for Francophones and they contain advanced idiomatic expressions that often make it hard for students to understand the meanign of the book or the text. That is a huge problem when students do research. They might not get it. It is also very frustrating, asking students to read texts that we qualify to be at a frustrating level. No wonder some kids quit.

As a French Immersion teacher,... (2/3)

My recommendation

I think if one wants to be totally bilingual, one has to be truly immersed in the environment. FI in BC is a fake environment. FI started in Quebec and it made a lot of sense there. Here? Not in its present structure!

I think it would be wiser for parents and children (and school boards) to introduce French (speaking mainly) as early as possible as we know plasticity in the brain/vocal chords,... happens before puberty and also teach English (1 trimester in English, 1 trimester in French, last trimester in both, perhaps). This would allow the removal of students who are struggling to learn (in) their first language as early as posssible. True! This could be ascertained with the present model (Total French for the first 3 years), but parents and teachers are usually reticent in removing a student. I found that I had students whose understanding of concepts was impaired because they could not quite get it in French and their English suffered as well.

I also think --as alluded by others-- to think of more "realistic" experiences where the child is totally immersed, say, after a few years of learning it here (so as not to make it too traumatic). A summer camp exchange idea might great with own parents (and one or two child friends, maybe) to France. What about a year (part of a year) in France exchange? I think it would need to be as a whole class because a child alone would be very vulnerable and isolated. I also think that only the best students should be selected to go on (if they wish) in secondary classes. After Grade 6, students make little progress, don't have much motivation to learn it, their written French is wrought with mistakes, and they like to speak English most of the time with their peers. Summer camps/exchange by that age might be a good option (home exhange to bring costs down).

As a French Immersion teacher,... (3/3)

So, FI in BC (in any parts of the world really) where French is not used in society offers challenges. It is not a total waste of time, but the program needs to be thought over. Frankly, few Anglophones who head these programs know what they are doing. They are great sellers, but have they taught recently? Do they actually know what they are talking about? Do school boards personnel care and know differently? I have seen --in my 25 years of teaching-- a trustee once in a school. Trustees don't get true information as the top guns in FI are going to tell them exactly what they want to hear! In NB, of course, it is different because most people are truly bilingual!

It is surprising though that these changes took place in a relativily more bilingual environment than in, say, BC. I find the change in NB a bit reactionary frankly, but is it also politically motivated? FI has its place, but it needs to be revamped by some courageous person who can fight unions, teachers, top gun personnel, and commercial interests. That might be a lot to chew at! (If S. Bonds wants me to send her complete analysis of how the FI programs should be revamped, let me know! My fees are very reasonable and I will speak freely ... in English, of course! :)

Voilà! Merci et à bientôt!

BTW, learning a second language is truly valuable for me, although it is true that in BC, one has limited use for it. It could open doors if one was willing to move around. I can read in two languages, offering me the choice of tapping into news that might not get filtered in the English media. I can appreciate French movies more (subtitles don't quite measure up to the original script). It is easier to travel.

SweetHome...

We can safely say that there will be a higher proportion of smarter students in FI, but as I said, there are kids with learning disabilities or behavioural challenges in FI too. No autistic kids or more severily disable kids though! We can safely say that --depending on the area-- FI kids will USUALLY come from higher educated households (or caring parents), but it varies. Yes! ESL students --in certain areas-- do enhance the educational culture of a school or class. Not, in East Vancouver though! :) But, I am sure in West Van or White Rock this is so!

Learning French VS any other

Although I can appreciate the point of view of those that state that Chinese is a more pragmatic language to learn here in BC, there are many bilingual Chinese speakers in BC that will be in a far better position than any Chinese Immersion (CI) students to get a job where Chinese is needed. On the other hand, CI might learn Mandarin (VS Cantonese) and that might give them a business advantage to tap into the Chinese market.

I agree with G. West that French is important in Canada, but I also understand that most of the naysayers have never travelled to Quebec because they have been tampeded politically by the anti-French media or because they thought that Hawai or Mexico represent better value. At the end, it is a tough call though! I can see both side have a point. Incidentally, learning French makes learning English spelling a breeze! (Not bad spelling for a French guy who does not use a spell-checker, hey?

My Canada includes French speakers

I'm not that interested in debating official bilingualism. It's the law, I respect the law.

As for French immersion, we had a real debate at home as to whether to put the kids into it. We decided against it because our only evidence was anecdotal (the point that this article makes), and that was that our friends' kids were having a lot of trouble with it. It's hard enough to stay focused on learning maths and sciences without also having to do it in a completely foreign tongue.

This outweighed the perception that immersion would help insulate our kids against a dumbing-down process imposed by ESL students. The latter fear never manifested, I'm pleased to report.

The idea that Francophones are an intergral part of Canadianism is something that I share with G. West. I don't necessarily see it as being more Canadian than western alienation or Hongcouver -- all are options. I would strenuously resist mandatory bilingualism.