<p>As an American citizen who lived for 9 years in officially bilingual Canada, I thought it was an expensive policy to implement. It was necessitated from the time of their Founding Fathers to make French bilingual (and BTW install the protection of Catholicism in Quebec) to avoid secession. Since the French and English were co-founders from the time of that country’s inception, it is fair that both languages be carried forward. Without that agreement, there might have been secession or civil war from Quebec.</p>
<p>As a result, there are expensive legal requirements such as the right to have your court case heard in either language; the requirement to publish every law in both languages; doubling up of school offerings across the country.</p>
<p>There is an advantage of intra-population communication, but the insistence is that the “second language” learned in school is that of the “other” rather than a choice of all languages from around the globe. Since the quiet one-third of Canadian’s population is now neither French nor English, new immigrants from 60 other language groups must choose to immerse their kids in either English or French, with important economic implications for their kids’ futures. Which language is the more universal globally? English. Which way must all new (Chinese, Somali, Pakistani, etc) immigrants who land in Quebec learn? French. Very different futures for their kids. In our American excitement to learn Spanish, let’s not forget how many other foreign languages are flowing into this country, but none such a great majority as Spanish.</p>
<p>Now back in the U.S., I would rather see a strong emphasis on English Second Language for all foreign speakers, modelled after Israel’s highly successful Hebrew Ulpan program that settled in millions of immigrant families. It’s a hands-on, experiential, family-friendly appraoch that gets people speaking another language and supporting each other as a family learning together. Instead of spending years as a marginal speaker, Israelis see new immigrants from around the globe learning the language in an intensive program for months (not years) to get them launched in the new country. We should learn from them.</p>
<p>North American ESL programs can’t compare! I taught ESL in Canada and witnessed it in U.S. classrooms where I taught an early grade level. We draaaaaag out foreign language learning for years by pulling kids out for 45 minutes a day, when they’d be better served with a front-loaded immersion into English as an investment in their (and our) future. As well, even after street-language fluency is gained by children in English ESL programs, their academic skills lag behind by years but they are dropped from the programs when they can speak/talk (and not yet read/write) in the school setting. As a result, it’s hard for years to keep up with textbooks without any further support. We drop them too soon, in terms of academic support, from ESL classes. Research shows this gap lasts for another 4 years before it’s closed, but that’s a long time for a young school child to be behind in regular classes. </p>
<p>As well, young English speakers in Canada become bilingual “enough” to apply to all governmnet and most private sector jobs that require bilingualism. Bilingualism always means French there. Is that necessarily the best language to learn? Maybe, maybe not. For a global future, is Spanish necessarily the best language for all of us (sad) unilinguals to learn next? Maybe (if Spanish immigrant families remain unschooled in English indefinitely…) or maybe not.</p>
<p>In the U.S., I would prefer to see one official language, English, coupled with Ulpan-style EFFICIENT, family-friendly programs to teach new immigrants from all languages enough English to get launched in this country. Then, if the population remains large locally that speaks Spanish, encourage (don’t require it) as a second-language choice throughout public schooling. </p>
<p>Do not start establishing “English” schools and “Spanish” schools, as the Canadians have. It also was divisive in terms of neighborhoods. On the block we lived (in Ottawa), four families sent same-age kids to four different schools: English (with “core French” 45 minutes daily); French Immersion (for
Anglophones – English speaking families who wanted their kids to learn French from a young age so only French was spoken there starting in Kindergarten); Catholic school (publicly funded) in English; Catholic school (publicly funded) in French. And no, there weren’t any publicly funded Protestant or Jewish schools, just Catholic. Non-Catholic families paid school tax (could designate to which of the 4 systems the tax could go) and also private school tuitiions.</p>
<p>Needless to say, none of the families or kids on the block knew each other. We watched FOUR half-empty schoolbusses come down the block each day.
Very divisive and lonely. </p>
<p>That was the national capitol and a model for “bilingual” education in Canada.</p>
<p>A current Canadian might update my information, and understand that I love Canada enough to take on dual citizenship for our whole family while there!
I thought that bilingualism made sense in an English/French co-founded country but it was very expensive to implement.</p>
<p>In truth, people spoke the “other” language in their workplace or to converse in the marketplace with an “other” but there was no carryover into the homes,
unless there was an intermarriage of a native French speaking parent with a native English speaking parent.</p>
<p>WHile the issue was of vital importance near Quebec (Ottawa’s right on the border of Ontario/Quebec), the same national policies were required across the nation, out to Saskatchewan and Winnipeg where fewer Francophones actually lived. Of course this kept the mobility option for Francophones to move anywhere in their own country, so that is important to consider.</p>
<p>By law, the food labels, street signs, store signs and so forth had to be in both languages. So, I did learn a LOT of new French vocabulary by reading everything published on the breakfast cereal boxes each morning. Every food item must be printed in both languages, so that’s a good daily reminder for those who enjoy reading food labels in two languages.</p>
<p>The one thing that might have been effective that they weren’t doing in the early l990’s when I was there was running French sub-titles under every moment of the TV news or films. </p>
<p>Watching films over and over is the age-old way 20th century immigrants learned English on these shores. At that time, I felt that our neighbor-to-the-north was missing the very easiest way to educate the public, through broadcast media with subtitles in both languages. Has that changed yet?</p>
<p>Anyway, it sounds good but is expensive to be a bilingual country. </p>
<p>My own two learned French as their foreign language, but the youngest who grew up more in America chose Spanish instead. He recognized it as a marketplace wisdom to know Spanish in America, just looking at population trends for the future. But that was by choice.</p>