Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of February 16, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, February 16, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:02 p.m. to continue its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. My name is Claudette Tardif, senator from Alberta, and I am the chair of this committee. I would ask the senators to please introduce themselves, starting to my right.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, from Quebec City.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, senator from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Chaput: I am Maria Chaput, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Marie Poulin, I have been representing northern Ontario since 1995. Welcome.
The Chair: During this 41st Parliament, the members of this committee are examining language policies and second- language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality. This study seeks to examine the existing policies, challenges and best practices that promote second-language learning in a country that has two or more official languages.
In its study, the committee is examining both the Canadian perspective and the international perspective. Today, we will hear from four witnesses from Quebec. I welcome Moktar Lamari, director of the Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation at the École nationale d'administration publique, Eva Anstett, coordinator at the Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation, and the representatives from LEARN: Suzanne Longpré, communications officer, and Donna Aziz, English as a second language consultant.
We will start with the presentation from the Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation, and continue with the presentation from LEARN. Once the witnesses finish their presentations, the senators will ask them questions.
Mr. Lamari, I am told that you will go first.
Moktar Lamari, Director, Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation, École nationale d'administration publique: Thank you, honourable senator and chair of the committee, honourable senators and Mr. Clerk.
It is a pleasure for us to appear before you with the results of our research. Let me first thank you for this invitation, which demonstrates the clear interest of the committee in our research at the Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation also known as CREXE. This centre is part of the École nationale d'administration publique, which in turn falls under the Université du Québec.
With me here is Eva Anstett, coordinator at CREXE. Ms. Anstett coordinated the research with a multidisciplinary team of around 20 professors and professionals.
As researchers at CREXE and ÉNAP, we are proud to share with you the results of our research on learning English as a second language in primary schools in Quebec.
Given the time available for my presentation and the pre-established protocol, I will quickly say a few words about this study and come back later to the lessons learned about the conditions for success, the benchmarks and inspiration that promote public policy decision-making on second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality and plurality.
The research — the results of which we will send you — took place over two years, covering two main measures carried out in primary schools in Quebec since 2006 and 2011 respectively. The first measure is one of introduction and familiarization designed to make children aged six to seven become aware of the English language. The second measure entails more intensive learning in immersion settings, and takes place over a minimum of five months at the end of primary school. I will come back to these measures with more details a little later.
However, before I begin, honourable senators, I would like to clarify the concept of evaluation. This is a key concept that guided us in our study. Evaluation is a systematic approach based on empirical data, data obtained in the field and with those involved. This information is used and analyzed according to social sciences research methods to answer specific questions, evaluative questions on the design, relevance, implementation, effectiveness and efficiency of one measure or another.
In this context, the Quebec department of education, recreation and sport gave us the mandate to examine four questions. The first one is about relevance. Is this relevant? Does this make sense? The second one deals with the design, consistency, logic of the interventions, and the third with the implementation. Finally, the last question examines the effects of these measures on the primary education system in Quebec and, more generally, on learning English in primary school.
To do this, we used an empirical protocol that allowed us to take the advice of many people and of those most directly affected. We questioned, met and interviewed in various ways no fewer than 3,500 players, 1,000 respondents from the Quebec general public, 980 teachers, 1,000 parents, including 500 parents of children following the main measure of intensive immersion, and 500 parents whose children do not follow it. We interviewed teachers and principals, 490 principals, some of whom have implemented the intensive measure and others who have not.
Clearly, as part of this process, we did not limit ourselves to electronic or telephone surveys. We conducted interviews, group meetings to have more qualitative information, and develop our questions further. Let me take this opportunity to thank the education department for the funding it gave us and to thank all those who kindly responded to our requests, the principals, parents, and so on.
I would like to answer the first questions that were asked at the beginning of the meeting. In terms of the first question about the learning of English as a second language by primary school students in Quebec, according to our surveys, measures for learning English as a second language are much appreciated. This denotes a desire that the government do more for second-language learning. All the surveys and all the extensive research conducted with parents, with the general public, principals and teachers demonstrate that everyone agrees that second-language learning is relevant and necessary, and that more needs to be done in this area. Grievances are obviously related to resources, including support measures.
Both measures have been implemented over the past decade: the first in 2006, the second in 2011. The first measure was easier to implement, because it was preceded by an experimental protocol; basically, it does not bring major changes to schools and organizations at the primary level. As a result, the first measure aimed at the primary level was implemented more easily than the second, since the latter has generated much turmoil and political debate, which did not make it easy to implement it across Quebec. Today, only 15 per cent of primary schools have implemented this second measure of intensive English learning at the end of primary school. There is a political issue or a political sensitivity that slows down the implementation of the intensive measure.
In terms of your second question about second-language learning for immigrants or people from immigrant communities, our research suggests that parents, from new and not so new immigrant communities, require those services and are aware of how important it is for their children to master the English language.
For many children of immigrant families, English is a third language, which does not make for easy trade-offs between the second language, the third language and the mother tongue. So there are issues that complicate the learning process and, as a result, the schools that implement this measure experience some unique challenges in terms of achieving coherence and complementarity of the various measures. If you wish, I will come to those items later.
Those parents see the learning of English as a second language as a worthwhile investment in terms of employment, mobility, innovation and globalization.
Of course, as part of this investigation, we conducted a meta-evaluation that allowed us to become familiar with the experiences of six comparable countries, to see what they do and which models, best practices and lessons can guide us and inspire our public policies in this area. The experiences vary depending on the country, be it Spain, the Netherlands, Finland, France or any of the other countries we studied. We note that the sensitivity to second-language learning is specific to each context but, in general, English stands out as the dominant second language in western countries, and even in emerging countries.
In some countries, English as a second language is mandatory very early on in the school system. We have identified a number of countries that are now very well positioned in terms of innovation and economic growth. Around the world, we are also seeing that parents want their children to learn this second language because of its dominance in many areas and spheres of life, culture, trade and innovation.
However, English is not the only language. There are more and more incentives and policies that also promote Spanish and Mandarin, particularly in European countries. We can come back to this point later if you want.
I will conclude by talking about the main challenges in this area. Our research summarizes the challenges in the 10 findings listed in this document, which you can examine. There are therefore 10 challenges. I will list them using keywords.
The first one is communication. This refers to the importance of communicating all policies and rules related to second-language learning in order to avoid policy ambiguities, cognitive dissonance and real or perceived risks with regard to putting major languages in jeopardy.
The second challenge is progressivity. Plans and programs for second-language learning should adopt a progressive approach that takes into account the capacities or sensitivities related to issues such as identity, culture and ideology.
The third challenge is appropriateness. Government and public actions, be they programs, regulations, plans or anything else, must consider the specificities of the actual expressed needs. In this study, we identified students with specific needs related to disabilities — I do not like this term, so let's say challenges — and as a result, implementing the measure is not done in the best conditions or with teachers requiring more hours of support. Therefore, these measures sometimes become very costly in budgetary terms.
The fourth challenge is related to the fact that learning a second language is seen as an investment. This is a view that is shared by society, parents and teachers in Quebec. Learning a second language is an opportunity, a value added, a way to acquire rewarding skills for personal development. All documentation on this issue indicates that second- language learning can even affect a number of variables in IQ tests — I am exaggerating a little, but these are the facts. It promotes employment and mobility, which are key to success. It is an investment. Parents interested in this learning and in investing in it may be somewhat reluctant to assume the costs.
The fifth challenge is policy flexibility. It takes flexibility and nuance to reflect disparities and diversities. A cookie- cutter approach can have a negative impact, a stiffening that can undermine implementation.
The sixth challenge is specificities. We must pay special attention to implementing support measures for professionals, parents and the various organizations involved.
The seventh challenge is related to evaluation, which is a major lever of success.
The two other aspects I will quickly mention are resilience and innovation. Resilience refers to the notion that mistakes are allowed. Experience shows that some schools, some regions have gained experience and, ultimately, mistakes are corrected. As for innovation, Web 2.0 technologies are also levers of success. Finally, there is also synergy, the desire to make different stakeholders get involved and work in schools and the school system in general. That concludes my presentation.
Let me emphasize the fact that, as a researcher, I am truly honoured to be able to present my research, because I think we often criticize researchers for not talking to decision makers. This is an opportunity that speaks to your interest and gives us hope that the findings of our research will turn into actions.
The Chair: Mr. Lamari, thank you very much for this interesting presentation that is very interesting for our study. We will now go to Ms. Longpré from LEARN.
[English]
Suzanne Longpré, Communications Officer, LEARN: Good evening. I intend to do this presentation in English. I don't think that causes any problems for the members.
Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, I'm happy to be here. It's my second time. I was here two and a half years ago when I presented to you the resources and services of LEARN. Well, we're back, and I'm eager to tell you a little bit about some of our accomplishments but mostly about our newest project.
We've just distributed some copies. I'm sorry to say we came prepared for a PowerPoint presentation, but thanks to Daniel and his quick thinking and resources, you've got the PowerPoint in front of you. We're going to be talking about LEARN and we plan to respect the time.
LEARN is a non-profit organization. Its mandate is to meet the educational needs of the English-speaking students and the students who are in English schools in Quebec. Obviously, you are well aware that English students are in a minority in Quebec. English students can be found in various areas of the province.
Our services and resources are free to members of our community. We are funded in part by the Canada federal- provincial entente. Money is distributed for linguistic minorities.
Next is a short slide to review with you. There is some new material here, too, of some of the things we've created since we last met. We have an online academic research journal that is present in 100 universities worldwide. We oversee community learning centres. We have created hundreds of pages of digital resources. We do online tutorials for students and we do online instruction to students who may be in isolated areas of the province.
We have developed gaming software and we are also number one in Quebec in the English sector when it comes to the professional development of teachers. Here we are pioneers and innovators in the areas that you see listed on the slide. We have won a major international award or, at least, I must say with great humility, our teachers have at iNACOL, which is the international conference of online education.
An important piece of news is that we have been given the authorization and the go-ahead by the MELS — "Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec" — to open Quebec's first virtual school. We don't quite know when that will happen, but it's a go.
We are also at present doing an English-as-a-second-language pilot project in conjunction with MELS, and we are looking at developing what we call an LOR — a learning object repository — which will be tagging the resources that we have to the needs of the students and to curriculum.
If I am going quickly, I want to respect the allotted time.
I've given you a sheet, "LEARN by Numbers." There were 50 million hits on our site last year, surpassed only by the University of Toronto in terms of educational resource centres. Five thousand educators are presently engaged in online communities on our website. There have been 30,000 student tutorials since our inception, and we had professional development activities for 4,000 teachers, 90,000 since our inception.
With this kind of expertise, and with the kind of success that we've had, if I say so myself, we were approached by a group of individuals who asked LEARN for its help in providing education to their students in the area of English as a second language. I'm pleased to introduce Ms. Donna Aziz. She is responsible for this project.
Donna Aziz, English as a Second Language Consultant, LEARN: It's a great honour to be here and to explain to you how LEARN's expertise in various areas has helped bring into being a project in Thailand. We are at the end of our first year.
Several years ago, LEARN was approached by a non-profit in Thailand and asked for some expertise on implementing English as a second language in elementary school. At that time, the Thai government provided tablets for a projected 9 million students. The 9 million tablets were never distributed. Some were, but they stayed on the shelves. The project stalled because you cannot have a technology program without pedagogy, and that was where LEARN came to help Thailand with this particular project. There was a need, because of ASEAN, the economic association that is now coming into being, for the Thai students to eventually be very fluent in the English language, and that was the beginning of it.
There were challenges in terms of equity. There are over 30,000 elementary schools in Thailand, but there is no equity between the private schools and the public schools. This project is taking place in Grade 1, in the public schools — not all of them. We have started in the south of Thailand.
Another challenge that we encountered was the issue of urban versus rural. A large part of the population of Thailand is rice farmers; that is the economy, and so they live outside of the urban areas.
Another challenge is finding native English-speaking teachers. Unfortunately, it has happened in the public schools that we would find individuals who could speak any kind of English who were perhaps on tour in Thailand, which is a very popular spot for North Americans to visit, and hire them. These are untrained — we call them teachers — instructors without any pedagogical background. That was a challenge.
There was an issue of connectivity. It's nice to give people lovely tablets, lovely software, and when they can't connect to the Internet that also does not work.
Another challenge: Abysmal results. Thailand is number 48 in PISA scores. Their own exams were inappropriate and the students could not pass them.
What happened is that approximately two and a half to three years ago a pedagogical project was initiated by Michael Canuel, who ordinarily would have been here presenting. He is the CEO of LEARN.
This pedagogical project — and I believe you have copies of the slide — is a blended learning model using a neurolinguistic approach for language acquisition. What that means is that if we look at the other slide, where we have learning retention rates, we see that the traditional model is "drill and skill." This project was based on acquiring the language, teaching kids how to learn a language and not just filling them with facts or words that they could not put into practice.
With regard to the project itself and what we are doing in the classroom, we target the four elements of competency: reading, writing, listening and speaking. The students are engaged actively in each of those skill areas. It is very similar to what I would have done in my previous life as a CEGEP teacher in the province of Quebec.
We got into action. So we had a pedagogical project, and we were going to teach the kids how to read, write, listen and speak. They were just little guys, six, seven years old. The first thing we did, the non-profit made sure that every school in the project and every school going forward will have high-speed Internet connectivity.
The issue of equity was dealt with by actually giving the kids tablets: They are theirs. They will be allowed to bring them home eventually, but they belong to the children themselves.
Urban versus rural sort of go together. A broadcast centre was established in Bangkok. This is where the native speakers are. Politically, Thailand is not, shall we say, stable. We started in the south, where there is insurgency, and it's very hard to get trained teachers to go to the south, let alone perhaps North American native speakers or British native speakers to go and work in the south.
The teachers partner with a classroom teacher. There is a teacher in Bangkok who comes on with the students and actually does the listening, speaking and communication part with the students. We solved that problem by having native speakers in Bangkok.
The Chair: Ms. Aziz, in order to provide adequate time for senators' questions, I would ask you to perhaps move a little more quickly.
Ms. Aziz: I can summarize it by saying that we did professional development with online teachers and with the classroom teachers. At the end of the day, at the end of our very first year, the project is working, including for special needs students. We are getting very positive feedback, and the program will be expanding into Grade 2 next year.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, thank you for appearing before our committee and for your very interesting presentations.
The Commissioner of Official Languages appears regularly before our committee and, at one point, he told us that there are fewer young anglophones enrolling in courses to learn French in the other provinces. Now, since I have a teaching background, I found that young people in Quebec are not bilingual once they graduate high school or CEGEP. I find that very unfortunate.
Mr. Lamari, in May 2014, ÉNAP's Centre for Research and Expertise in Evaluation released three reports on intensive English teaching in Quebec. The study showed, among other things, that certain factors may hinder the development of these intensive English learning programs. Among these factors, you pointed out the difficulties in recruiting and retaining teachers and their attitudes regarding changes.
What solution do you propose to help recruit and retain teachers?
Mr. Lamari: Thank you for your question, senator. This question is really quite broad, since it involves a number of incentives.
First, there are the collective agreements. Often, teachers recruited to teach English have relatively less formal status than regular teachers. So this point needs to be stressed as it could also lead to the restructuring of schools and timetables. Introducing intensive English for five months a year brings about many changes that require a will, an unwavering will. However, in all cases, this means committed policies with the means required. This is an important point. Without a review of the statutes governing job security and wages, without incentives or training for teachers, today we can statistically see that it is very difficult to meet the demand if all Quebec schools implement the intensive English program. This is a major constraint that calls on the federal and provincial governments to move forward in the development of more meaningful training policies.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Did you want to comment, Ms. Aziz?
Ms. Aziz: No, I'm sorry.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have a second question for you, Mr. Lamari.
In the same study, you mention that the tools provided by the department are inadequate. In your opinion, what are the necessary learning tools?
Mr. Lamari: You know, the intensive English program is recent. It was launched in 2011 by the Liberal government. Elections followed and, somehow, political parameters led to a lack of resources and of continuity.
Now, this obviously requires new tools, because many of the teachers, parents and principals with whom we met agree that, although the measure is in place, it does not come with the necessary resources. So the rush in implementing the measure, depending on the political agenda — if I may say so — sometimes an electoral agenda, resulted in announcements, commitments and a 2015-2016 timeline to generalize the measure.
Schools clearly stated that they had no resources, that they had neither the teachers nor the tools. The measure introduced in 2006 was for the early years of primary school. It was more flexible and less demanding in terms of teachers' skills.
This measure was preceded by an experimental protocol; it was tested and evaluated to achieve the best results when implemented, which is not the case for the second measure.
Senator McIntyre: Ladies and gentleman, thank you for your presentations. For about two years, the committee has been studying the best practices for language policies and second-language learning.
Many witnesses have made claims about a variety of topics, such as the role of universities and the media; access to French immersion programs across the country; the awareness of immigrants to second-language learning; the multiple benefits of bilingualism, including the economic, social, commercial and cognitive advantages; language skills assessment and accountability in the education sector.
Finally, several witnesses remarked that learning another language involves not only learning how to communicate in that language, but also gaining an understanding of the related culture.
That being said, we would like to know your main claims about all these issues, as representatives of organizations working in the field of education. Should the role of universities be expanded or the media's?
Ms. Longpré: This time, I will speak in French. At the end of my career as a principal, I had the pleasure and honour to teach at McGill University for two semesters. So I got some mileage, as the saying goes. I mean that figuratively, of course.
The situation is starting to change in universities, especially at McGill. In one of the classes I was teaching, I had 125 students, with about 50 of them speaking French.
Now, suppose you talk about the tasks required of a bilingual teacher or a teacher who is very functional in French, and you say, "I would like you to teach ethics and religious culture in English." Teachers are very professional. Some of them might be bilingual and know the subject and methodology inside out, but they still feel that they don't have all the skills they need.
Perhaps it is a lack of confidence. It is important to note that it takes teachers five years to build their self- confidence. That is what research shows. Teachers need five years to develop their methodology and feel comfortable. Things are starting to change, but it is difficult to convince a teacher and say, "You are strong enough, competent enough to meet the challenge." That's a problem.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. Longpré. Mr. Lamari?
Mr. Lamari: Yes, it is true that universities have a role to play in developing tools that can be complex. The senator made that point, while keeping in mind the duality related to culture. Immigrants deal with even more cultural perspectives that might be more or less conflicting at times.
As a result, the funding for research needs to encourage the development of tools. There are also challenges with the training of teachers. Resources need to be mobilized to attract and retain them, as well as to make them like the profession.
The other aspect universities must consider is a commitment to assessing what works and what doesn't. The reality is not homogenous. Take Quebec, for example: the situation is very different between Montreal and Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Chicoutimi.
Clearly, we cannot use the same means and resources without having to tailor them. That's sort of what I wanted to add.
Senator McIntyre: Would you agree that, like research, teacher training and knowledge retention are also very important?
Ms. Longpré: In fact, teacher training is one thing; making them feel comfortable to teach the subject is another. We must keep in mind the province and how big it is. When we try to implement intensive programs in some regions of the province, we don't have the resources to do so.
I am talking about human resources. It is more difficult when we have instructors who teach English one word at a time. Things are going well in Montreal, because it is a cosmopolitan, bilingual city that offers everything you need. However, things are more difficult in the regions, as is access to doctors. Just try to send them to certain remote regions. That is still a problem and great challenge.
Senator Chaput: My colleague mentioned earlier that we are now studying best practices for language policies and second-language learning. That is the purpose of the committee's work right now.
How can government policies support second-language learning? Could you tell us more about your province and the Quebec policies on second-language learning? How are those policies developed? Do they support this type of learning?
[English]
Ms. Aziz: I would like to address that in terms of my experience at the college level, because we had this happen.
Almost 20 years ago, MELS declared a reform. I was one of the people who had to completely change my practice from the "drill and skill" to reading, writing, listening and speaking at that level. We were given, luckily, a lot of support to help implement it in my particular college.
MELS did the same thing in the elementary sectors, requiring that English be taught according to the four elements of the competency. Unfortunately, there was not quite enough support from the government to help the teachers who were already there.
Senator Chaput: Are you talking about English schools, immersion schools, or English taught in French schools?
Ms. Aziz: I taught in a French CEGEP. I taught English as a second language in a French college, and so I am speaking about French schools in Quebec.
Perhaps two years ago, three years ago, we received the first cohort of students who had been through elementary and secondary school and who were being taught reading, writing, listening and speaking. The exams were changed and we were finding at the CEGEP level that we had to adjust our courses up, that the students were much better than they had been before. It was a positive step, but it is a very slow process.
To go back to your question, unless the teachers are supported in that approach and are given adequate training, it just will not happen.
The Chair: Would anybody like to comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Lamari: We have circulated some documents. There is a graph that identifies the various measures and actions based on whether they were implemented or designed by party X or party Y. The documents show this breakdown and evolution. This evolution allows us to see that, since 2006, things have been moving far more than before. There is a certain level of awareness on the part of governments, civil society and schools. The graph shows that. You can see that part 3 shows initiatives that are multiplying. That is good news and there is some awareness.
What are the reasons for that? Maturation, input, progress; immigration definitely contributes to the progress, but I think the challenges are also the result of discontinuity in the measures. A measure can be introduced and, before it takes root, it is called into question or undone, sometimes for political or partisan reasons. However, we think this reality is changing.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Lamari, perhaps there is a connection between that and your presentation. You said that programs must take a progressive approach. Is that related to what you just said?
Mr. Lamari: Yes, absolutely. The idea of progressivity relies on communication, in order to reassure partners, principals and teachers so that they don't feel threatened by an English teacher who might come and take their pay.
These current realities have been documented in our reports, and some English teachers don't even have an office. Sometimes, that is how far things go, because the system has not planned for the required logistics. However, this progressivity will probably encourage mobilization in the long run and create resources so that measures, such as intensive English training, can be implemented and move forward like the measure for the early years of primary school.
Senator Chaput: Of all these measures — and I know they are all important — which would be the most important? Which measure contributes the most to success, thereby making it difficult to achieve the objectives?
Mr. Lamari: We evaluated two measures, including the measure for the early years of primary school. This is a metalinguistic awakening; we are teaching students how to distinguish a French word from an English word. We are making them recite nursery rhymes. So it is a fairly simple introduction at first, keeping in mind the children's age.
At the end of primary school, the training becomes more intensive and the courses are more formal, structured and assessed. Assessment is important. Such a measure would definitely improve learning and we cannot do without them.
However, schools do not have the same predispositions and resources. In our evaluation, we have seen that various schools implemented the measure but in different ways. Some schools do five months in English and five in French; others do 2.5 days in English and 2.5 days in French per week. There are a number of formulas. We identified about a dozen formulas that show how innovative each school and internal structure is. Do government actions need to go so far as to formalize and structure the measure? It is important then to realize that additional resources will be needed.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, the school is able to decide, to choose, the format that suits it?
Mr. Lamari: That is the reality we have observed in the 15 per cent of schools that have implemented the measure. The intensive English formula is still in its early stages. In that 15 per cent of schools, there are a number of models. The schools have not implemented the same model.
Senator Chaput: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Maltais: Ladies, Mr. Lamari, I am happy that you are here, thank you. You are much braver than your colleagues at the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation. Give them this message: they are wise people, but they are scared. It is disgraceful of them not to come before a Senate committee that represents the French language in Canada. Please give them my warmest regards.
Mr. Lamari, I was astonished and pleasantly surprised by your report. You have conducted a very comprehensive study of the situation, I feel.
To give you a little background, I have spent my life — outside my professional and political life — in the field of education. I chaired a school board, I was vice-president of the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec and I was an assistant to Mr. Ryan at the time of the education reforms. I was a member of the National Assembly at the time and this area has greatly interested me.
I had three children go through primary, secondary, college and university education. When they were studying, there was no English. What a huge disadvantage when they got to university, particularly in engineering and medicine, where there are no books in French, not even in engineering. For poor kids like that, who learned not one word of English at school, it is completely unacceptable!
But I have a 13-year-old grandson attending public school, English option. It is extraordinary how quickly he has learned since the beginning of September. Also to my great surprise, I have another grandson in Grade 1, general option, and his English is amazing for a little guy of six. He puts his grandfather to shame sometimes.
Something is going on in Quebec and it is very unfortunate.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis, a former teacher, said it just now: it is unacceptable today for a kid to graduate from CEGEP and not be able to speak English fluently. So why is teaching English the last thing on the minds of the thinkers, the professors, the CEGEP directors? What they have on their minds is teaching people how to demonstrate, how to form unions, how to make an issue out of everything; anything but teaching English. But it is not all that complicated when you go about it the right way.
To have a real chance of getting to university today, people are not Quebeckers or Canadian, they are international, and the international language is English, would you not agree? Of course there are small problems, they exist everywhere. Like you and my colleague, I am from Quebec City; I live in Beauport, to be specific. There, right across from the Île d'Orléans, there are a lot of workers who speak Spanish, from Mexico or Guatemala. I do not know if you have had the chance to visit the public school there because it is a very interesting community.
I have spoken, not with the children, but with the parents. I asked them what their objective was in choosing to live in Quebec. The parents are clear that they have to learn French if they want to work in Quebec, in agriculture or in other businesses. Those parents are looking ahead; we must not think that, because they do not speak our language, they are uneducated or unintelligent, far from it. For a little six-year-old boy or girl coming to school speaking Spanish and being taught English and French at the same time, for the first three months, they won't know their prayers any more.
I come from northern Quebec, an area that has distinctive characteristics. There are a lot of small English-speaking communities there where people do not speak French. There are also many aboriginal communities where, according to whether a Catholic or Protestant cleric came there, residents learned French or English. All of this means that finally, no one understands anyone else. The aboriginal communities, whether Attikamek, Montagnais or Innu, do not all speak the same language. Language is supposed to be a unifying element.
You touched on certain points in your report. Personally, I do not agree with you on the financial aspect. The wishes of the parents must be taken into account, those of the children, and also those of the collective agreement managers, that is to say the school principals. They are not educators; they do not have time to work on pedagogy, methodology or things like that; they manage collective agreements. They have to deal with the caretaker, the person who opens up the schoolyard; they absolutely do not have time for pedagogy. The principals are public servants who administer the collective agreements. That is unfortunately the case. Fifty years ago things were somewhat different, but unfortunately, today, that is what they have become. It is not their fault, I do not blame them, far from it. Do not cry, madam, this is not aimed at you; it is just an observation I making.
I think money is not a problem, because the money is there. The issue is how to use it well, because there are too many guidelines governing its use. Do not ask for more for the Ministry of Education, because Treasury Board cannot put in another dollar. How can it best be administered, and distributed fairly and equitably? That is the question I am putting to you, and I think it is very important.
Mr. Lamari could answer my question, Ms. Longpré also. I liked your program a great deal. I find it interesting. Rather than using it in Thailand, could you not reverse it and do it in French in other provinces?
Ms. Aziz: If I may reply, I would say that I totally agree. An effective teaching program can be used in any language. That is exactly why Mr. Canuel asked me to come here to explain it to you.
Senator Maltais: Congratulations. This is what we need in francophone communities outside Quebec. We will not count on the Government of Quebec to defend them, but we will count on people like you to help them better understand and better support teachers and parents in French-language teaching. If you do so, bravo. I congratulate you, because I find this brilliant. The best time to learn a second language is when you are young. Thank you.
Ms. Longpré: I simply wanted to add — now that I have dried my tears — that I know from my work as principal that it is absolutely true that we are administrators. When we are not dealing with what color to paint the walls, we are grappling with all kinds of other things. However, I can tell you that on the anglophone side, where I worked for many years, what gladdened my heart in March or April was what is known as time allocation. That was something! Because the physical education teacher would say, "Just a minute! Children have to be in good shape!" The English teacher would say, "I do not have enough time!" And the math professor would say, "They're not doing well, Suzanne!" There was a struggle, and the schedule, as educators know, has to be accepted by the parents' committee, the institutional council — I was going to add and the Knights of Columbus, but that isn't so.
In the last school where I was principal, we spoke French 54 per cent of the time. The English class was the only thing that took place in English. If they had had a chance, I think they would have taught English in French! That was a lot. There was ethics and religion; what was left was math and English as a first language.
On the anglophone side, according to my experience, there was a political will based on concrete aspects and all of the points you have raised, that is to say that children have to be bilingual when they leave elementary school. That was the reality in the school board I worked for. I know the nine other ones, and their intentions were quite similar.
Mr. Lamari: I believe that means are not everything. In terms of budgets, as you pointed out so well, the federal and provincial fiscal situation is such that that is not where — But we will still need public policies to "shake the cage" in terms of collective agreements and negotiations, so that English can have a better place. Now, this is a process, and things will certainly not happen overnight. From my perspective, we will need political will for people to be made aware of things, for attitudes to be changed, and perhaps to lessen this mistrust, this fear regarding English that is expressed in certain environments, certain lobbies, and in the media, as you pointed out. It is as though it were a zero- sum game: if English goes up, it means French is going down. We have to get beyond that perception, by letting it be known that learning English can even benefit one's mother tongue, be it French or another language.
Current research shows that there is reciprocal stimulation. Several experiments have to date shown, American ones in particular, that learning English in the United States, when it is accompanied with learning and modules in Spanish, produces a very beneficial leverage effect.
I share your point of view, but there has to be a structuring will and perhaps a more sustained and continuous one, over time.
Senator Maltais: Thank, Mr. Lamari. Congratulations on your report, once again. It is going to be very useful for the future. You prepared it for the future and not for the past.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I would have a question for you, following your excellent presentations as researchers and professionals in the educational field. If the federal government asked for your advice today regarding what to do to make the bilingualism policy in Canada a real source of pride for all provinces, what would your recommendations be?
Ms. Longpré: That is a very complex question, but what I can say to you, in light of my practical experience, is that we are getting there. There is a generation — I am thinking of my daughter and son, who are trilingual. Their children are already bilingual, one is in third grade and the other one in kindergarten. They have already mastered two languages. I think that with time, with globalization and the will these young people have to succeed, the constraints or obstacles will be less rigid. Young people today — like my daughter — want their children to have a good life and the best possible education. If they are bilingual, or trilingual, that is perfect. They want to give their children a linguistic master key, the necessary skills and courage, and they tell them: "Go for it, you can do it!" Sometimes they go too far because the child feels that he or she is up to anything; but we are getting there. That is quite a difficult question to answer, because what Mr. Lamari says is true. It makes me think about a chemistry experiment. There is a small communicating vase and people say, "Oh! There is too much English and less French." That is exactly it. There are only so many minutes in the day, and perhaps we should start to examine, as certain advanced countries have done, the possibility of extending the school day. We are still following the agricultural calendar. In the month of June we had to stop everything to bring in the hay and feed the animals. Perhaps we need to add a few days so that people do not have difficult choices to make between bilingualism and —
As for pride, that will come with time. I am convinced of that.
Mr. Lamari: The question is extremely important. What can the federal government do in that context? The first point is that the need is a current one; parents, Quebeckers, teachers and principals are aware of the importance of English and are making arguments regarding its impact. The need, the relevancy have been demonstrated in Quebec. What can the federal government do? We could talk about it for a long time, but I would say that there are four points. The first one is awareness-raising. Today, the debate is binary in certain communities: English is pitted against French. So, awareness-raising is needed to develop this understanding of the complementarity in learning through positive stimulation. There are insufficient means right now to do awareness-raising through information, flyers, and so on. Educated Quebeckers who have degrees and good salaries are already aware of these facts, but when we have to explain how or why, in sometimes isolated regions where there is a low level of schooling, that awareness is lacking.
The second point is the need to fund the assessment of what is being done today. What are the effects on the students' knowledge and skills at that age? Here again there is insufficient funding to do assessments and to demonstrate where things could be better and where they are not working. The funding of assessment is a major point. We have to revisit the federal-provincial partnerships with local levels, because these three levels are often grouped together.
Today, the federal government can fund programs, as it has done for infrastructure, which involve cost-sharing. Perhaps I am going a bit far, but I think that some joint funding partnerships or negotiations would be a good idea.
We will still need to see measures — as the federal government is doing today through federal programs — in research and development and innovation. There are a lot of master programs that apply to all of the provinces, and there is an option for funding of that type.
[English]
Senator Beyak: I'm sorry for my lateness. I came from another committee. I am Senator Beyak, senator from northwestern Ontario.
I was struck by what you said, Ms. Longpré, about being a little nervous about wanting to be professional when you teach English. People like me feel the same way; we want to do it well, so we don't speak French at all because we think we're not speaking well.
I agree with what you said, Mr. Lamari, about making it fun in school, singing and teaching the kids in that way. And then Senator Maltais finished it off for me.
English is the universal language. What would you all think of a federal strategy to make it fun and inclusive? I think we had differences in the past — but we don't anymore — with the $20 million official language funding and the inclusion of Quebec as a nation. Any divisions we had I hope are behind us.
Is there a strategy that could make it fun so that French grows across our country? We're already a global country. The world is global. Each of you has a lot of expertise and I wonder what you think.
Ms. Aziz: You speak about fun. There is another element that I didn't mention. It's the issue that it can't be imposed top-down; there has to be a groundswell.
The resources that the Thai children are using in reading, writing, listening and speaking are all being developed in coordination with the Thai teachers. There is sensitivity to the reality of their culture, that everything is very authentic. I think that would be important.
Yes, it definitely has to be fun. Unfortunately, Senator Maltais is not here, but in the Grade 1 program, these children don't know how to read Thai either, yet they are learning to read English. One skill is building on the other, and there is absolutely no resistance. The children don't resist; they don't know enough to resist.
Ms. Longpré: I want to share a personal experience I had that was funded by the federal government when I was a high school teacher. We went on an exchange program. I was teaching in Beaconsfield, and we took a plane and went up past Seven Islands. It was really far. We exchanged with this group of students. They took us fishing at two o'clock in the morning because the fish were coming in. "Ça roule, ça roule, le caplan!" My kids said, "That's not French, Ms. Longpré, that's not French." It was a wonderful experience. Then they came to Montreal. We took them to the Big "O" and all over.
The conversation I had in the bus with my students when we got to Seven Islands by plane, the French kids were there to meet us, and one of them said, "Écoute bien, tu n'en as jamais vu un, un anglais!" And the other one said, "Oui, oui. J'en ai vu un à Québec l'année passée!" That is a true story. That was a costly trip. It was a lot of work to organize, but the benefits to those kids were amazing. It was a group of 15. They were billeted. I just wanted to share that.
Beyond that, more important than ESL is that we have to develop a culture of learning that's exciting because this generation will not be able to do well or survive if they don't learn.
Technology doubles every six months. Everything we know in the field of general knowledge doubles every five years, so unless we're able to keep that awe and wonder they have in kindergarten and Grade 1 — "Oh, mum, I learned about butterflies today" — if we can't keep that alive, if we can't inspire and develop the love of learning and if we can't find, with master's degrees and doctorates and other titles, ways to get our children involved and make it meaningful, we're not going to succeed.
Mr. Lamari: My English is not very good, but I will try to comment on your question.
Our survey suggests that we have to face at least four problems. The first one is dealing with unionism. This is a huge problem. The second problem is dealing with time allocation. Third, we think teachers are not always okay with the managers or directors of schools. The fourth one is about kids having handicaps and problems. There are many kinds of problems that will handicap a restructuring and implementation of intensive and more efficient ways to teach English.
Senator Beyak: Your report is excellent. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I will try to be brief. Mr. Lamari, you helped develop and assess various government policies and strategies in Quebec, when you were a director in the Quebec public service. My question may be a bit delicate, but can you explain to us how Quebec's public policies on second-language learning are developed? I would like to know what goes on at the upper echelons. Ms. Longpré talked at length about her experience as a principal, and she explained how things went on at her level, but among the executive group you were a part of, how was this perceived?
Mr. Lamari: Excellent question. I was a manager at the Ministry of Research and Innovation, and I was sometimes directly involved in the design and development of public policies.
You know, a public policy is a set of means and objectives. The determination of the objectives is subject to power relationships, unfortunately. English can be an issue that can lead to negative power relationships. We can sometimes see it in meetings, when the atmosphere can get very tense. The logic, you see, is binary: people think that if there is English, it means that there will be less French. That reality unfortunately scares public servants and politicians a great deal, if they are not on the right side of the debate. So sometimes government policies are developed in a rational way, based on figures, demonstrated results, a review of what is happening elsewhere, and best practices. The further along you go in the process of selecting intervention instruments, the more the vise tightens, and good intentions are sometimes perverted, because of these ideological, political and budgetary power relationships.
Implementing intensive English courses throughout Quebec requires an incredible number of teachers; they have to be found, integrated into the system, and paid. We need tools, traditions, and these are means that cannot be developed overnight. We need policies that fit into the continuity, the duration, and today's policies are often in very tight timeframes. There are contingencies for two or three years, or the length of a mandate. That is our reality.
I also teach public policy analysis, and sometimes their parameters are anything but rational: they are affected by power relationships, ideology, lobbying. The media are a major force. Our study of newspapers articles shows that there are many rants and arguments that are not substantiated and speak out against the intensive approach, even if parents and the population in general show high levels of acceptance, close to 85 and 90 per cent.
Sometimes, you see, the development of public policy is not as rational as one might think. The process is vulnerable to budget constraints, ideology, power relationships, and of course timeframes.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Do you think that the Government of Quebec would accept our committee's recommendations? Education is a provincial field of jurisdiction, and I think it would be important that they be made aware of our recommendations.
Mr. Lamari: This may surprise you, but the research was sponsored by the Ministry of Education, when Ms. Malavoy of the Parti Québécois was minister. The results of our research took some time to come out, but finally — you read the recommendations — they were well received. Times have changed, attitudes have evolved. Things are not moving as fast as we would like, but there is some openness.
I think that your recommendations would support the demands we have quantified from parents, the population, and teachers. The relevance is there. Of all the people we met, in all categories, more than 80 per cent thought English was relevant.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Ms. Longpré, I saw you look startled several times.
Ms. Longpré: I assure you that I do not lack for enthusiasm. I would like to see some openness on the other side. The gentleman very eloquently described the scope of the challenge, but as I was saying, we can feel the winds changing. I worked at the Ministry of Education, I was responsible for programs, and on the topic of pedagogy, I can sincerely tell you that superhuman efforts were made to bring about this reform, which is based on solid research.
On the topic of pedagogy, of current programs, there may have been some problems in implementation, but I was not working in English at that time, I was in the field of ethics and religious culture; another very controversial area. Yes. I agree with what Mr. Lamari says. I am also aware of the constraints, but I hope to see some openness.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Lamari, regarding your report, we are going to set Quebec aside, because we are Canadian senators and our mandate is to bring about an improvement in second-language teaching in what I might call emerging environments in the other provinces.
The gist of your report can apply to Quebec, but if it were adapted a little bit, it could be extremely useful in the other provinces, for all of the Canadian francophonie. This is an important component you have brought us, which the superior council had not shared with us.
As a researcher, you have done exceptional work. I am sure you will not object to our using your report in order to make ours better, on the situation of the Canadian francophonie; similarly, earlier I asked Ms. Aziz to adapt what she is doing currently for the anglophone community so that it can be used for the francophone community outside of Quebec.
It was Roger de Bussy-Rabutin who said, "When you do not have what you love, you have to love what you have." We are going to cherish you, because you have prepared an exceptional report and we are going to put it to very good use.
As for your report, Ms. Longpré, it was exceptional. Please know that we are going to put it to good use. On behalf of the Canadian francophonie, I thank you for your participation.
Mr. Lamari: With your permission, I would like to make a brief comment. There is no doubt that what we included in this report is but a part of the entire database we have. We will be pleased to share it, and are honoured to do so, and to develop some potential solutions with you.
That said, I would add that in New Brunswick — and we attempted to examine this — there is an intensive French program. We described a few elements in the report, among others the relationship between mother tongue and the second language, this time with material where the mother tongue was English and the second language was French.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Lamari, I'm glad you mentioned New Brunswick because when I was young, learning a second language was full of fun and excitement. At home we spoke French, but at school and in the schoolyard we would speak both languages.
Today I speak both French and English, and I have to say that it is fun and very exciting to be able to speak both languages. I wish I could speak many more languages. I just want to stress this idea of having fun in learning and language. This is how you learn a language, by having fun, and as you mentioned, Ms. Aziz, imposing this is not the solution, as far as I'm concerned.
Having said this, there are a variety of approaches to second-language instruction, such as core programs, intensive programs, immersion programs, linguistic environments and so on. In your opinion, what are the best approaches required to ensure effective second-language teaching, whether it is in Quebec or any of our provinces? Is it all of the above that I mentioned, or should we zero in on one particular approach?
Ms. Aziz: I have had the pleasure of looking at the ESL curriculum for Ontario, Alberta, of course Quebec, and also having read a report from Newfoundland on the teaching of language. I can only say to you, regardless of the amount of time that is spent, we have to get away from teaching the language in isolation. It is not only fun. It is the reading, the writing, the listening and the speaking, be it through starting with pictures, but it is the relevance, the authenticity and the pleasure, regardless of the language.
I was chair of the department that I worked in for 15 years, and we taught Spanish in exactly the same way: reading, writing, listening and speaking. I was in a French college. Unfortunately my francophone colleagues in the French department did not have quite as much success as we did. Many students did not finish CEGEP because they couldn't get through the grammar, the syntax and the literature. Very often these were the young men who were going to go out and perhaps repair your photocopy machine and didn't really care about Molière.
That would be my response to it. Regardless of the amount of time or the money, whatever program you are going to do, it has to be taught in a way where they will acquire and learn how to learn a language. We're not filling them up with vocabulary.
Mr. Lamari: I have a quick comment on that question. For sure having fun is a huge determinant of learning a language, but we have to nuance some situations. For instance, the age of kids when they are learning a second language is important. We asked this question of different directors and teachers. They tell us about eight to nine years old is the best age for acquiring this second language, mainly once the first language is quite constructed and understood very well.
Second, in my view, we have the chance to use new technologies. Web 2.0, the new platform, is helping nowadays in Quebec.
I have two children. They are using this technology and their English is progressing very well. I think we have the opportunity to perhaps invest more and help schools in acquiring this new technology in order to facilitate some tools dedicated to English kids particularly in francophone milieus.
The Chair: Thank you so much to our witnesses. Thank you, Ms. Longpré and Ms. Aziz, for your enthusiasm and sharing your professional experience with us. We could sense that enthusiasm in the way that you expressed yourself.
[Translation]
Mr. Lamari, Ms. Anstett, thank you for having shared this most interesting report with us. It will really help us in our study, and we thank you for your very astute comments.
Honourable senators, we are going to suspend our meeting for five minutes and continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera without reporting.)