Learning

Fred Genesee is presenting the Minerva Lectures across the country, sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning. His topic is Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities, which of course will be of interest to New Brunswickers, given the recent elimination of early French immersion by the Department of Education.

A quick review of Genesee’s publications shows that there will be something for both sides of the argument around EFI:

Notwithstanding gaps in our understanding, research has yielded considerable insights about bilingual education. The following generalizations are compatible with the findings that have been reviewed here:

1. Bilingual education for majority language students is effective in promoting functional proficiency in a second, and even third, language at no cost to the participating students’ native language development or academic achievement.

2. There is often a positive correlation between amount of exposure to the L2 [second language] in bilingual programs and level of L2 proficiency, but not always.

3. Bilingual programs that provide appropriate and continuous instruction can be effective with younger or older students; in other words, advanced levels of functional L2 proficiency can be acquired by students who begin bilingual education in the primary grades and by those who begin in higher grades.

Read the entire article (PDF) .

In Atlantic Canada, lectures are 15 April in Halifax and 21 April in Charlottetown, but not in New Brunswick. Pity.

Update:

Canadian Parents for French, New Brunswick will provide a special presentation of “Early Childhood Bilingualism: Perils and Possibilities” by Dr. Fred Genesee at UNB Fredericton at the Wu Conference Centre on Wednesday, May 14 from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M.

Location – Wu Conference Centre, UNB Fredericton at the Kent Auditorium, 6 Duffie Drive; Local Contact Info – Jane Keith, Executive Director; Tel.: 506.432.6584

Jacques passed on a mention of Alverno College while we were discussing the issues around early French immersion in New Brunswick last week. I took a look at the web site for this women’s college in Milwaukee and found that the program is based on ability-based curriculum, which is fascinating and reflects many of my own beliefs around education and learning:

Alverno doesn’t use standardized tests and traditional exams. Each student is unique, each learns in unique ways. But life is competitive, and so are we. Rather than measure performance as a snapshot in time, against a curve that strips away individual achievement, we focus on measurement that’s about you, and only you. The lessons you learn are applicable in real life, they become part of who you are. Alverno students learn more in class and retain the lessons longer. Our eight cornerstone concepts represent the very building blocks needed to create an effective and relevant learning experience.

The eight abilities (Communication; Analysis; Problem Solving; Valuing in Decision-Making; Social Interaction; Developing a Global Perspective; Effective Citizenship; Aesthetic Engagement) could be the cornerstone of many educational programs, even at the high school level, and make more sense to me than most outdated subject-based curricula. This program has been around since the 1970’s and is an excellent example of how an institution can be a place of real learning for every individual.

I’m heading off to Fredericton tomorrow to protest against the abolition of early French immersion (EFI) at the Provincial Legislature. I’ll be joining hundreds of other concerned citizens to show our disagreement with this decision. It’s my first protest, as I never had the chance to participate in these political activities while I was in the Army, so I guess it will be a learning experience.

I have many concerns with our education system, and I would have preferred to engage the government on something more substantial, such as the basis for curriculum or the whole notion of one-size-fits-all education, but EFI is the touch-point for many parents. I’m adding my voice to this protest for several reasons:

1. Gaining a second language is one of the few useful skills that students can develop and keep long after they have memorized and forgotten useless data for most academic subjects.
2. All of the research shows that learning a second language earlier results in better abilities with that language.
3. A second language opens mental capabilities and makes it easier to learn other languages later.
4. Speaking a second language opens one’s mind to the realization that there is more than one way to conceive of something, and can make you more tolerant of others.
5. Multilingual capabilities are valued by the “creative class”, and we want to attract and retain the creative class.
6. Abolishing EFI sends the wrong signal and encourages a myopic view of Us versus Them, especially since the Minister of Education has stated that EFI was elitist [but was open to all students].
7. Pushing second language learning to the fifth grade and making it optional in Grade 6 reduces our other official language in this province to the status of an academic elective.

This is not the end of the world and there are other, more important issues in our society, but the abolition of EFI is sending the wrong message about this province’s vision for its citizens and it is handicapping a generation of learners who are getting little out of the education system already.

Now it’s off to make my placard …

Update: We had about 500 protesters, of all ages, but our three-hour demonstration fell on deaf (government) ears:

Gilbert asked how I defined curriculum in my last post. There are many definitions, but I specifically meant curriculum as the pre-determined set of subjects, objectives, tests and lessons that constitute public education. Of particular note is that the students have no input or choice in the curriculum. I am not referring to university curriculum, where students have choice, or training, which is set by employers or other authorities.

First, do we need curriculum? Our official objective in NewBrunswick is:

To have each student develop the attributes needed to be a lifelong learner, to achieve personal fulfillment and to contribute to a productive, just and democratic society.

Predefined curriculum is not a necessary ingredient to fulfill this mission, and that is my prime concern. Someone far removed from the learner, and even the teacher, decides what is best for everyone. For example, someone decides that children study about the Great War but not the Suffragette Movement.

My issue is first that the public school curriculum, as it is implemented, is based on subjects and not processes (e.g. critical thinking; research methods; logic; etc). Secondly, I know from experience that the NB Department of Education does not have a process by which its subject-based curriculum is developed. Basically, a number of “experts” are put in a room for a week and when it’s over they have developed a curriculum. It is a rather black art. There are no first principles on which a subject’s curriculum is based so one cannot go back and determine if the subject is still relevant, if it ever was.

Curriculum, as currently practised, constrains learners, as there is no room for exploration because the teachers must cover what’s on the curriculum. This is the flaw in being subject-based. If education were process-based, then teachers could facilitate learning using a variety of subject areas. Why should I learn about history when I am more interested in art? Can’t I learn critical thinking in either discipline? Such an approach would mean giving up control, and that of course is the real issue. Once again from Brian Alger:

Challenging the validity of curriculum in any form means to challenge people’s jobs whether they are political officials, school administrators, consultants, teachers, students or parents. Part of the immense control and authority that curriculum has is that it provides careers and therefore sources of income. This, in my own experience, is where I have found the most significant roadblock to change and innovation.

So how can students become “lifelong learners” when they are told what to do, when to do it (in 50 minute increments), and what is important by an authority figure? Luckily, many children learn in spite of schooling.

Are there other options? Here’s just one – The Best Learning Experience Ever.

As I listen to comments on the Liberal government’s decision to axe early French immersion (EFI) in New Brunswick, I’m reminded once again that we have become so accustomed to the ground of schooling that we no longer see it for the restrictive institution that it has become. I return to Brian Alger’s post on curriculum:

One of the effects of curriculum design of any kind is confinement. And the confinement of human experience is an act of violence. A common example of this confinement via curriculum leading to violence is bullying.

Some of the written comments [spelling unchanged from original comments] on this CBC story are equally bullying:

• The Government would have been better served years ago if they had said that all Governmet business would be conducted in the language of majority in Canada and that is ENGLISH
  
• do away with bilingualism, the french have all the government jobs anway
• Why don’t we the province of NB have english emmerison in french schools? ANYONE!!! Wouldn’t it make more sence to teach both groups both language then all of our kids would have the same chance in head of the class?
• Why do you think any body wants their children to learn a base in french, when their are plenty of useful things to learn. When will you get it thru your indoctrinated appeasement thinking,that we want our kids EDUCATED!

When it comes to public education, everyone is an expert but no one knows what will work best for all students, because there is no single answer. Whatever curriculum is chosen will be constraining and bullying on someone and perhaps many. Our education system, based on the Prussian military school model with core subjects copied, and mostly unchanged, from Harvard’s 1890’s example, is seldom questioned.

The Minister of Education is using his powers to change the curriculum and now a different group of parents feels bullied. Others, who have felt bullied by the existence of French culture and language feel empowered to taunt this group. No matter what happens, someone will feel like the victim at the end of this. Curriculum is the confinement of the human experience. It is a blunt tool that winds up bullying someone. It’s time to throw this tool away, but first we have to sincerely ask why we’re using it in the first place.

More on Public Education

While the Minister of Education in New Brunswick tinkers with the school system and abolishes Early French Immersion, [more info here] the Finns are quietly ensuring a high quality education system for all. Via Sara Bennett, is this post on lessons to be learned from the Finnish school system. The highlights, in my opinion:

School doesn’t start until age 7, but a government funded preschool program concentrates on self-reflection and social behaviour:

It is interesting to note that one of the most notable attributes of Finnish children is their level of personal responsibility. The early focus on self-reflection is seen as a key component for developing that level of responsibility towards learning.

The Finns realize that 50% of students are above average while 50% are below average in academic proficiency, so there is a vocational and university track in high school, and neither is stigmatized. Separation does not happen until the 9th year, and there is little grading in earlier years. Attendance at universities and polytechnics is free.

I’ve listened to the French immersion debate and have been involved from several perspectives, but I’m coming to realize that EFI is not the issue. Is our government spending time and money on the symptoms of our sick industrial school system in order to divert us from the root causes of dysfunction? If enough parents and educators spend their precious discretionary time on the French immersion red herring, perhaps no one will notice that millions of dollars are being wasted elsewhere.

This afternoon the router wasn’t working and both boys (Grade 8 and 10) had a short-lived panic episode, as they needed to get on the Net to do some schoolwork; assigned today and due tomorrow. Of course, they cannot do homework without Net access.

It appears that the school here has done a pretty good job of off-loading much of its work to third parties:

• There are few up to date books in the library
• There are few computers at school; time has to be booked; they are blocked from many sites; and they are slow.
• Spare classes are not allowed (can’t control the kids), so there’s no time to do research at school anyway.
• Homework is assigned to be done at home, where at least our kids have high speed Internet access and a quiet place to do work, not like at school.

On top of all this off-loading of access to knowledge, not once has either of our teenagers received any instruction at school on how to do research, or how to check a source. I have set up a list of Student Resources for them, but no teacher has ever done that. No teacher has created a Wikipedia entry or shown how to do it, and Wikipedia is the main reference (next to Google search) that students seem to use.

The school administration goes on about quality education but they are being completely bypassed in knowledge gathering, basic research, and connecting to these young learners. Where are the teachers in our community using the Internet to connect with their students? I fear that far too many are hiding behind the walls of the institution and the comfort blanket of the union.

At this rate, it will soon be obvious to all that there is little value in actually attending school. Around here, in New Brunswick, Canada, the schools are making themselves rather redundant.