The importance of an MPs character.

[Machjo]

I was just wondering how important an MPs character is to an average voter. To take an example, MP Scott Reid is a vegetarian (and as far as I know, the only vegetarian MP in Ottawa), yet a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. If you were concerned about animal rights, would you be more inclined to vote for him or for a hamburger-guzzling PETA-member who just gives PETA some money every month?

Likewise, NDP MLA Graham Steele is one of few, if not the only, Nova Soctia MLA who's trilingual, but he is a member of the NDP. Would you be more inclined to trust him to defend language justice competently, or an active member of and regular contributor to some language-rights movement who can't speak any language but his first?

I'd just like to know, for you, is the MP's character and his ability to put his words into daily personal action more important, or his professed ideology?

[William Ashley]

The character of the person you vote for should rank right up there with their intelligence and capacity to represent the public, and to help Canada acheive what it ought.

Being a commercial vegan - I try only to buy vegan food when I shop. There have been a few exceptions to this, and I openly eat meat provided to me by others, as my beleif is not to support the abuse of animals, but to put animal product to best use.

It is actually VERY suprising only 1 MP is trilingual, I would expect many to know more than 3 languages. Although I don't see how someone trilingual could try to respect langauge rights more than a bilinugual or unilingual person.

Fact is I wouldn't vote for the conservative anyway because he is helping to support one of the worst prime ministiers in Canadian History - Steven Harper - someone who has sold out and continues to sell out Canada while pursueing a social agenda that puts greater burdon on the tax payers and provides them less rights and fewer services, all the while having corporations do less for the country. Also we can't forget he is also a Prime Minister that supports HST. Not to forget the fact he is debting the country tremendously while paying the banks for property Canada already owns in the tune of 100 Billion Tax dollars flushed down the corporate muzzle.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

The character of the person you vote for should rank right up there with their intelligence and capacity to represent the public, and to help Canada acheive what it ought.

I'd rank character as even more important than intelligence and capacity. An unintelligent and incapable politician of good character might not achieve much good, but won't cause too much damage either. An intelligent and capable politician lacking in character is the most dangerous kind. Consider that Joseph Goebels (a doctorate-degree holder by the way) was highly intelligent and capable. That intelligence and capacity made him even more dangerous.

It is actually VERY suprising only 1 MP is trilingual, I would expect many to know more than 3 languages. Although I don't see how someone trilingual could try to respect langauge rights more than a bilinugual or unilingual person.

There may be others in the Nova Scotia legislature, but he's the only one I know of. To the best of my knowledge, if he's not the only one, then there aren't that many still.

Fact is I wouldn't vote for the conservative anyway because he is helping to support one of the worst prime ministiers in Canadian History - Steven Harper - someone who has sold out and continues to sell out Canada while pursueing a social agenda that puts greater burdon on the tax payers and provides them less rights and fewer services, all the while having corporations do less for the country. Also we can't forget he is also a Prime Minister that supports HST.

Granted I was taking merely one example of that politician. He happens to be vegetarian, which clearly proves his concern for animal welfare beyond lip-service, and that counts for something. I should also point out that Scott Reid has voted agains his party often enough, so he's not exactly the ultimate party hack. However, you are right in that we should take other factors into account about him. I was just taking a fews points as examples to illustrate the point that some politicians do incorporate their beliefs in their daily lives.

[Machjo]

" Although I don't see how someone trilingual could try to respect langauge rights more than a bilinugual or unilingual person."

Clearly one who has made the effort to learn a second-language, any second-language, has already proven by his actions that he's willing to meet his fellow-man half-way in the communicative process. Anyone who's still monolingual by the age of 15 clearly sees no use in making the effort to meet his fellow man half way and simply expects the rest of the world to speak his language.

[William Ashley]

I'd rank character as even more important than intelligence and capacity. An unintelligent and incapable politician of good character might not achieve much good, but won't cause too much damage either. An intelligent and capable politician lacking in character is the most dangerous kind. Consider that Joseph Goebels (a doctorate-degree holder by the way) was highly intelligent and capable. That intelligence and capacity made him even more dangerous.

There may be others in the Nova Scotia legislature, but he's the only one I know of. To the best of my knowledge, if he's not the only one, then there aren't that many still.

Granted I was taking merely one example of that politician. He happens to be vegetarian, which clearly proves his concern for animal welfare beyond lip-service, and that counts for something. I should also point out that Scott Reid has voted agains his party often enough, so he's not exactly the ultimate party hack. However, you are right in that we should take other factors into account about him. I was just taking a fews points as examples to illustrate the point that some politicians do incorporate their beliefs in their daily lives.

If he didn't support the party agenda he'd sit as a independant.

So is a Nazi Party member any less Nazi if they don't always vote for Hitler, only sometimes, the fact is he is still voting for Hitler.

And he still supported the ruin of the nation when he could have stood out and just said: NO! I don't support you, I won't stand for what your Party Supports!!! But has he done it NO. So he is one of them.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

" Although I don't see how someone trilingual could try to respect langauge rights more than a bilinugual or unilingual person."

Clearly one who has made the effort to learn a second-language, any second-language, has already proven by his actions that he's willing to meet his fellow-man half-way in the communicative process. Anyone who's still monolingual by the age of 15 clearly sees no use in making the effort to meet his fellow man half way and simply expects the rest of the world to speak his language.

I think the 15 thing is a false assertation. Many people are total zombies up until and sometimes beyond their adult years. Although the education system gives basic insight, the education system and to some extent parents, when they are not zombies have the oppourtunity to provide for their childrens future. Fact is though the vast majority of parents are zombies or don't see the benefit because of legacy negligence to provide the oppourtunity for a second language. Canada is blessed in that it has two official languages, but unfortunately underfunds and doesn't provide enough support for both official languages. I must say though that more support is given then some monolingual countries, BUT still not enough is done.

I disagree with you if by the age of 15. Personally I was still a zombie at 15, with emotional sentiments of the moment, but no real life plan. I enjoyed French class but vaugely was the idea of devoting myself to acheiving a fluency in French existing as a notion in my mindset.

Fact is, it took many years later when I took part in a language program offered by the Ministers of Education that I started to learn French again. I value the French language, much like my recent travel to Mexico has increased my value of the Spanish Language.

Sadly the education systems in Canada has failed Canadian Youth. We need Core/Immersion french as a standard starting when children start school and for all Children. Being a certified English Instructor and having studied languages, I know that these are the golden years for language aquisition. While I still slowly learn French and Spanish, I know that if language respect is a goal in Canada, it must include mandatory French Immersion in English areas starting when school starts, and that the supports for this should not be limited to French schools which only allow the children of French Speaking people to participate.

We need to immerse the Youth from the start of their education, not half way through after their language aquisition capacities have drastically reduced.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

If he didn't support the party agenda he'd sit as a independant.

So is a Nazi Party member any less Nazi if they don't always vote for Hitler, only sometimes, the fact is he is still voting for Hitler.

And he still supported the ruin of the nation when he could have stood out and just said: NO! I don't support you, I won't stand for what your Party Supports!!! But has he done it NO. So he is one of them.

Hyperbole aside, yes I agree with you, and I'd have a hard time voting for Scott Reid myself. That having been said, for the purposes of this thread, in the limited scope of animal rights, let's say, would you trust a hamburger-guzzling New Democrat over Scott Reid?

[William Ashley]

Hyperbole aside, yes I agree with you, and I'd have a hard time voting for Scott Reid myself. That having been said, for the purposes of this thread, in the limited scope of animal rights, let's say, would you trust a hamburger-guzzling New Democrat over Scott Reid?

Which one?

[William Ashley]

Hyperbole aside, yes I agree with you, and I'd have a hard time voting for Scott Reid myself. That having been said, for the purposes of this thread, in the limited scope of animal rights, let's say, would you trust a hamburger-guzzling New Democrat over Scott Reid?

I don't agree with his bilingual strategy, it deprives too many Canadians of the oppourtunity to learn French. Although I do think a better system could be implemented, I think his notion is backward. He would be highly unlikely to get my support in any case, the NDP-Con question would simply be which members do I not agree with more rather than which is a better option, chances are Reid would land on the don't agree with side more often than the NDP side.

He is "social" minded, but he evades universal rational, and independent beleif as being justified for the individual in a free society, not a society which controls the free. He is a centralist without respect for individual rights or beleifs. I couldn't support someone who puts the majority before the individual, individual rights to reject the majorities will should exist to protect each and every individual citizen, in mind of someone who doesn't beleive in the charter of rights of Canada for the person, I wouldn't support someone who wouldn't support me as a person based on my non infringing values.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

I think the 15 thing is a false assertation. Many people are total zombies up until and sometimes beyond their adult years. Although the education system gives basic insight, the education system and to some extent parents, when they are not zombies have the oppourtunity to provide for their childrens future. Fact is though the vast majority of parents are zombies or don't see the benefit because of legacy negligence to provide the oppourtunity for a second language.

Then this would suggest that the majority of teachers are zombies too. After all, a wise teacher will teach his pupils according to their abilities, taking funding, local and family realities into account. If teachers are unaware that parents are zombies, then they must be zombies too, otherwise they would have been aware of it and adapted accordingly. For example, a teacher who sees his pupil struggling with French, but is aware that that child's parents know Chinese, might recommend that that child learn Chinese as his second language in school, so that his learning the written Chinese language in school could complement what his parents are teaching of the spoken language in the home, rather than force him to learn French so that he can't read Chinese and can't speak French, effectively imposing a form of monolingualism on him.

Likewise, a teacher who is aware that the parents are monolingual in a monolingual community, and with little interest in language learning, might recommend that the child learn an easier language than French so that he can in fact succeed in learning his second language. Besides, this has happened in a number of European countries already, where schools are free to teach Esperanto to fulfill second-language graduation requirements and where pupils can choose which second-language to be tested in for graduation requirements, including Esperanto.

Most bilinguals and multilinguals (unless they were simply raised that way) are well aware of how difficult it is to learn a second language and of the benefits (not just material, but cultural and spiritual too) that come from bilingualism and multilingualism. So certainly a bilingual or multi-lingual politician is more likely to be open to new strategies to promote universal bilingualism than a monolingual politician who would see language policy as nothing more than a politically expedient means of maintaining national unity.

Canada is blessed in that it has two official languages

No country is ever blessed to have multiple official languages. A country is blessed to have a common language spoken by all. Individual persons are blessed to be bilingual. As a bilingual English and French speaker, I can enjoy the richness of both cultures. If you are a monolingual English speaker, how do you personally benefit from Canadian official Bilingualism, either materially or spiritually?

, but unfortunately underfunds and doesn't provide enough support for both official languages. I must say though that more support is given then some monolingual countries, BUT still not enough is done.

So what country do you propose we learn from? According to European statistics, only about 6% of Western Europeans are functional in English, and not even 50% are functional in any second language (which in most cases is the language of a neighbouring country). Is it because of underfunding on their part? Before we just point to lack of funding, how about we present supporting evidence that increased funding will necessarily help, because if we look at European statistics, the effect of increased funding, unless phenomenal (which is sustainable only in private elite schools) is limited. This might be an added reason for which a number of European countries now allow for Esperanto to fulfill second-language requirements for high school graduation. Perhaps we ought to learn from our European counterparts who've already tried the increased-funding approach years ago. There is no point repeating an already-failed experiment. Had this never been done before, maybe it would e an experiment worth trying. It has already been done though, and statistics bear out the European results. Clearly it did not work for Europe, which is now moving on to alternative solutions, so why would it work for Canada, and even bigger country geographically?

I disagree with you if by the age of 15. Personally I was still a zombie at 15, with emotional sentiments of the moment, but no real life plan. I enjoyed French class but vaugely was the idea of devoting myself to acheiving a fluency in French existing as a notion in my mindset.

Then you should have learnt from your personal experience. Clearly, if most teenagers are like that, do you believe increased funding alone will suddenly change that nature? Again, research results from Italy have shown that pupils learning Esperanto starting at the age of eight are generally fluent in the language by the age of eleven and ready to learn a third language by then if they want to, or master Esperanto by the age of fifteen. Why not learn from our European counterparts whose research in this field is decades ahead of ours.

Fact is, it took many years later when I took part in a language program offered by the Ministers of Education that I started to learn French again. I value the French language, much like my recent travel to Mexico has increased my value of the Spanish Language.

Now you're confirming my above claim about funding for elite schools only. Unless you are a public employee with considerable government resources backing your learning of French, or you have the money to travel through Mexico, then these languages are not likely to be accessible to you. So while universal French-English bilingualism might be a fine objective for an elite school, it is out of reach f most pubic schools unless they're located in Montreal or parts of Ottawa.

Sadly the education systems in Canada has failed Canadian Youth.

As far as language education goes, statistics show that the European one had failed European youth too, again the reason Europe ha become much more experimental than Canada in its language education policies. After all, if an experiment fails, you don't just keep repeating it expecting a different result over time.

We need Core/Immersion french as a standard starting when children start school and for all Children. Being a certified English Instructor and having studied languages, I know that these are the golden years for language acquisition.

And you're a certified English instructor? You don't mean for second-language instruction I hope. Even elementary course books such as Penny Ur's point out to research indicating that on an hourly basis, older children outperform younger ones, and that those who start learning their second-language at an appropriate age quickly close the gap over those who start too early. By the end of high school, there is often little difference between the two groups except possibly for pronunciation, and even then there is often little to no difference.

Formaggio's teachers' book says the same, pointing to excessively early instruction being a waste of time and money for the most part unless the funding increase and increase in school hours per week is phenomenal. Helmar Frank recommends that the second-language be an easy one so as to build up the pupils aptitude and especially competence in second-language learning before then tackling a more difficult third language, while keeping weeker students on the second-language. Formaggio and Frank are common staple in modern Italian second-language education coursebooks in Italy.

While I still slowly learn French and Spanish, I know that if language respect is a goal in Canada, it must include mandatory French Immersion in English areas starting when school starts, and that the supports for this should not be limited to French schools which only allow the children of French Speaking people to participate.

Perhaps you ought to read the Grin Report (http://cisad.adc.education.fr/hcee/documents/rapport_Grin.pdf), an in depth analysis of the economic impact of various language policies, the difference between policies ranging in the billions of Euros in Europe annually. By the way, he's not a linguist, but an economist. As I said before, Europe is far ahead of Canada in the field of linguistics. Whereas in Canada, it's mainly linguists only who engage in language research, in Europe, economists have started specializing in language research too, especially from an overall economic perspective. What you're proposing above would mean a spending increase of at least hundreds of millions of dollars annually. It's not ust to hire more teachers, but also to train more teachers, meaning a need to train more teacher trainers and so on down the line, and then maintain the language skills of these teachers while they live in these monolingual communities. It's not cheap.

We need to immerse the Youth from the start of their education, not half way through after their language aquisition capacities have drastically reduced.

Again, Ur, Formaggio, Frank, Piron, and other scholars in the field would disagree with you here. It's been proven already that unless you're talking about a significant funding increase (and then there's the question of getting the populace on board for this with the tax hikes necessary), this would be a waste of time.

[William Ashley]

I think the 15 thing is a false assertation. Many people are total zombies up until and sometimes beyond their adult years. Although the education system gives basic insight, the education system and to some extent parents, when they are not zombies have the oppourtunity to provide for their childrens future. Fact is though the vast majority of parents are zombies or don't see the benefit because of legacy negligence to provide the oppourtunity for a second language.

"Then this would suggest that the majority of teachers are zombies too."

While many teachers may in fact be zombies, they are specialist zombies who can provide skills aquisition, but may not have total insight into the big picture, it keeps them sane. They more than often can do their job and do it well, but this doesn't make them more worldly. I think teachers are often more aware then many other occupations though, as they are exposed to things, and often to social information. But don't be fooled into thinking this was my intent, as I didn't intend suggest that in my previous statement and it comes off as painting.

If teachers are unaware that parents are zombies, then they must be zombies too, otherwise they would have been aware of it and adapted accordingly.

Sure and in some cases they do, but the fact is that language instructors are only one faculty in most schools, and often times program space is limited due to the administrations choices at board levels, school levels, provincial levels and federal levels. Teachers only have as much rope as they are given.

For example, a teacher who sees his pupil struggling with French, but is aware that that child's parents know Chinese, might recommend that that child learn Chinese as his second language in school, so that his learning the written Chinese language in school could complement what his parents are teaching of the spoken language in the home, rather than force him to learn French so that he can't read Chinese and can't speak French, effectively imposing a form of monolingualism on him.

I see what you are saying but I think the public education system should feed into the basic principles of the public and that is as a nation with two official languages, FRENCH AND ENGLISH, Not Chinese and English. I think specializations could exist in schools, BUT that it should be left to private schools and schools specialty programs to be more inclusive than domestic policy and national skills required for an efficient and effective nation. The fact is we are a bilingual nation, and we should all as citizens be capable of understanding both languages. Knowing chinese is great, I'd like to learn more chinese too, but the fact is it is not #1 on my list of priorities currently. I did fancy learning it in a private school myself on weekends, but the simple truth is, it takes time, and it is secondary to learning Canada's official languages. I can understand that someone who is Chinese spending more time learning their past and history but I would see it as either a specialist choice, or a family choice. While those oppourtunties should exist for people, I think it would be advisable to learn it as a third language.

Likewise, a teacher who is aware that the parents are monolingual in a monolingual community, and with little interest in language learning, might recommend that the child learn an easier language than French so that he can in fact succeed in learning his second language.

French isn't a difficult language to learn. Your ascertation is false rhetoric. It isn't the fact of learning a second language, but learning an official language. The funding priority for other second languages should be based on need and economic return, which is why non official languages should be specialty programs or run by private institutions or community organizations. WHile funding or support wouldn't be out of the question, a comprehensive French language program and a comprehensive English program or ENGLISH/FRENCH program should have the #1 priority spot, not English in English Areas and French in French areas. It has been proven time and time again that students can be taught both languages and be literate in both languages through immersion programs, so lets not sell short the capabilities of Canada's Youth, or dumb them down and keep them stupid, they deserve more.

I think you put the nail in the coffin in this argument with

"Most bilinguals and multilinguals (unless they were simply raised that way) are well aware of how difficult it is to learn a second language"

[William Ashley]

It is really quite sad when we need Americans to train our soilders how to speak French.

[William Ashley]

No country is ever blessed to have multiple official languages.

I wholely disagree with this statement.

A country is blessed to have a common language spoken by all.

Or common spoken languages spoken by all. It is far better than a country where people can't speak to one another. The reality is there are two major languages in Canada, English and French, that is a reality. As a whole nation we ought to be blessed to communicate with one another.

Individual persons are blessed to be bilingual. As a bilingual English and French speaker, I can enjoy the richness of both cultures. If you are a monolingual English speaker, how do you personally benefit from Canadian official Bilingualism, either materially or spiritually?

Greater communication. I think we are agreed but you seem to be promoting monolingualism, and I think all of us ought to have that same oppourtunity for that blessing rather than hoarding it to the priveleged few.

[William Ashley]

So what country do you propose we learn from? According to European statistics, only about 6% of Western Europeans are functional in English, and not even 50% are functional in any second language (which in most cases is the language of a neighbouring country).

What is your point. Make your own road, why are you always looking to Europe for how to do things. Do you not have your own ideas?

Is it because of underfunding on their part? Before we just point to lack of funding, how about we present supporting evidence that increased funding will necessarily help, because if we look at European statistics, the effect of increased funding, unless phenomenal (which is sustainable only in private elite schools) is limited.

It is possible to achieve the results. It is in part a staffing issue.

This might be an added reason for which a number of European countries now allow for Esperanto to fulfill second-language requirements for high school graduation.

I think there is a lacking of esperanto speakers. We do have an abundance of bilingual Canadians in Canada, and high unemployment rates.

Perhaps we ought to learn from our European counterparts who've already tried the increased-funding approach years ago. There is no point repeating an already-failed experiment. Had this never been done before, maybe it would e an experiment worth trying. It has already been done though, and statistics bear out the European results. Clearly it did not work for Europe, which is now moving on to alternative solutions, so why would it work for Canada, and even bigger country geographically?

Canada is bilingual that is the difference, there are bilingual people in Canada in abundance, meaning we have a better training base.

[William Ashley]

Then you should have learnt from your personal experience.

I have.

Clearly, if most teenagers are like that, do you believe increased funding alone will suddenly change that nature?

Funding isn't the answer the strategy is. Start younger, and make it mandatory until finish. Immigrants of course will have a steep road to climb or to go to a private school.

Again, research results from Italy have shown that pupils learning Esperanto starting at the age of eight are generally fluent in the language by the age of eleven and ready to learn a third language by then if they want to, or master Esperanto by the age of fifteen. Why not learn from our European counterparts whose research in this field is decades ahead of ours.

Canada isn't an esperanto nation. There are people who speak french only in quebec and people who speak english only in other parts of Canada that is the problem that needs to be solved, and it is only by assimulation of both languages that a meaningful working solution be enacted to enable communication among both groups.

[William Ashley]

Now you're confirming my above claim about funding for elite schools only.

Quite the contrary, you need to stop putting words into my mouth and painting me.

Unless you are a public employee with considerable government resources backing your learning of French, or you have the money to travel through Mexico, then these languages are not likely to be accessible to you.

This is a false ascertation. There are programs that are available to Canadians, you just need to apply to the programs. Return airfare to Mexico is only around $400 and you need around $300 to stay a month somewhere like guadalajara, with money for food, it being cheap at times there. You can live for around a month in mexico for $1000 including your flight there and back. This shoulnd't be out of range for most Canadians. Of course many Canadians may be stuck in a 9-5 job or carear, and this becomes less accessable due to expectations of employment.

So while universal French-English bilingualism might be a fine objective for an elite school, it is out of reach f most pubic schools unless they're located in Montreal or parts of Ottawa.

I disagree.

[William Ashley]

The hourly basis thing has no bearing on my intentions or what I've been talking about, your reassertation of this time and time again is a red herring and is complete sidetracking and bread crumb dropping.

[William Ashley]

ranging in the billions of Euros in Europe annually.

If there is a failing in the policy then it is likely in implementation. While I'm not going to write a book sized response on my chosen strategy to implement it, you must realize some options are cheap and effective such as technologically aided learning, which includes both software and the internet, and alternate methods of instruction such as group learning operations and program tutoring by other program levels. For example grade 11 students tutoring grade 9 students grade 12 students tutoring grade 10 students, or even greater age levels that don't include the same level of instructor student time share. This is possible and does occur in places such as Japan, we need a greater community in the schools, and if it is simple as something like book buddying for lanaguage learning it isn't a bad use of time or resources, it just needs to be implemented properly.

The key is really though community support and integration of a whole community rather than a privatized family unit oppressed, student oppressed, force our zombie making medicine down their throats. We need intelligent communities not independent people.

[William Ashley]

Again, Ur, Formaggio, Frank, Piron

Are you any of the above, no so why don't you stop spouting lies. The fact is their studies have nothing to do with my model. My model is not a time for time or hour for hour concept, it is a ongoing learning environment and has nothing to do with time for time. So all your rhetorical BS isn't relevant to the discussion.

You are none of the above people, so stop spouting your lies.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

Here is a webpage that explains basic expectations of youth that could be applied to a joint Language program in schools, as a learning timeline.

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/language_development.shtml

Notice why the 48 month mark is a much better jump in point rather than the 8 year point for language integration for later fluency, that is being a near native speaker.

One thing that sucks about learning a second language especially for teens is to be brought back to being a kid again.. relearing those basic things.

It is much more reasonable to group learn these things when we are a kid, not relearn things a kid learns as an adult, that is backward, and degrades other learning process such as learning materials, and joint benefit from learning materials at a specific age group for specific growth. Eg. basic concepts learning when young, complex thoughts and ideas as a teen. You cant do this if your teen is learning kids stuff as a teen.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

Here is a webpage that explains basic expectations of youth that could be applied to a joint Language program in schools, as a learning timeline.

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/language_development.shtml

Notice why the 48 month mark is a much better jump in point rather than the 8 year point for language integration for later fluency, that is being a near native speaker.

One thing that sucks about learning a second language especially for teens is to be brought back to being a kid again.. relearing those basic things.

It is much more reasonable to group learn these things when we are a kid, not relearn things a kid learns as an adult, that is backward, and degrades other learning process such as learning materials, and joint benefit from learning materials at a specific age group for specific growth. Eg. basic concepts learning when young, complex thoughts and ideas as a teen. You cant do this if your teen is learning kids stuff as a teen.

That only works with intensive learning the funding of which is only possible in either elite private schools or specialized immersion schools. Again, read Ur's book I've quoted above. The reality in a classroom is far different from the reality in the family. For younger children, they don't really understand why they're even learning a second language unless they're immersed in it. That is the only reason immersion programmes work. They are so immersed that they have no choice but to use the language in their regular school life. But good luck finding the funding and human resources needed to introduce that to all schools.

[Machjo]

You can read the document of the Italian Ministry of Pubic Instruction I sent you in the other thread and it explains it too.

[William Ashley]

That only works with intensive learning the funding of which is only possible in either elite private schools or specialized immersion schools.

All schools should be immersion schools or atleast partially immersion. While I'm not saying flash lightning the quebec flag is worshiped each morning in Calgary I think that a developmental strategy to over the course of a decade or two could be taken to integrate a joint language program. While I think perhaps the only constructive thing here is that this program would be phased in over closer to between 11 and 13 years, when the first guinea pigs err Youth would graduate from highschool, hopefully.

Again, read Ur's book I've quoted above. The reality in a classroom is far different from the reality in the family.

We need after school community programs also that are entertaining for youth like excusions and bilingual television programs that they would want to watch. The girth of material could be developed as the program expanded from jr kindergarten each year, to minimize cost of implementing the program.

For younger children, they don't really understand why they're even learning a second language unless they're immersed in it.

I bet people still don't understand some thing about language even though they are using it, it just comes natural to them. Much like people don't understand number theory until much later. They know how to use it to acheive a result that is modeled to them, but they don't really know what it is. Much like a lot of early language learners can work with models, and while their understanding of language may exist.. they don't fully understand the words they are using until later. Do you fully understand the meaning of all words, and not just physical ones? Of course not. Also native english speakers make lots of mitakes also such as the third conditionel structure. Fact is, it takes time to learn. And while children may be parots until their conceptualization expands you might ask why you send the kids to school at all until they are adults when they fully comprehend and can rationalize and reason for themselves. Give me a break.

That is the only reason immersion programmes work. They are so immersed that they have no choice but to use the language in their regular school life.

There is no reason why you couldn't do a day to day mixed program - French one day English the next, to allow mixed language Immersion or two days on two days off or part on part off etc...

But good luck finding the funding and human resources needed to introduce that to all schools.

It isn't a funding issue, IT IS a human resource issue. Although I think that over a period of 20 years it could be acheived, but it may include some training programs for teachers who are monolingual, and the graudual increase of only hiring bilingual teachers. Like I said the program wouldn't be overnight, but might take 20 years to realistically implement.

[Machjo]

Are you any of the above, no so why don't you stop spouting lies. The fact is their studies have nothing to do with my model. My model is not a time for time or hour for hour concept, it is a ongoing learning environment and has nothing to do with time for time. So all your rhetorical BS isn't relevant to the discussion.

You are none of the above people, so stop spouting your lies.

You can read them for yourself. Let me quote from Ur:

1. Young children learn languages better

This is a commonly held view, based on many people's experience seeing (or being) children transplanted to a foreign environment and picking up the local language with apparent ease. The obvious conclusion from this experience would seem to be that children are intrinsically better learners; but this has not been confirmed by research (Singleton, 1989). On the contrary: given the same amount of exposure to a foreign language, there is some evidence that the older the child the more effectively he or she learns (Snow and Hoefnagel-Hoehle, 1978; Ellis, 1994: 484-94); probably teenagers are overall the best learners. (The only apparent exception to this is pronunciation, which is learnt more easily in younger children.) The reason for children's apparent speedy learning when immersed in the foreign environment may be the sheer amount of time they are usually exposed to the language, the number of 'teachers' surrounding them, and the dependence on (foreign-language speaking) people around to supply their needs ('survival' motive).

The truth of the assumption that young children learn better is even more dubious if applied ot formal classroom learning: here there is only one teacher to a number of children, exposure time is very limited, and the 'survival' motive does not usually apply. Moreover, young children have not yet developed the cognitive skills and self-discipline that enable them to make the most of limited teacher-mediated information; they rely more on intuitive acquisition, which in its turn relies on a larger volume of comprehensive input than there is time for in lessons.

2. Foreign language learning in school should start early

Some people have argued for the existence of a 'critical period' in language learning: if you get too old an pass this period you will have significantly more difficulty learning; thus early learning in school would seem essential. But this theory is not conclusively supported by research evidence: there may not be a critical period at all; or there may be several (Singleton, a989; Long, 1990). The research hypothesis discussed above - that children may actually become more effective language learners as they get older, particularly in formal teacher-mediated learning situations - means that the investment of lesson time at an early age may not be cost-effective. In other words, if you have a limited number of hours to give to foreign language teaching in school, it will probably be more rewarding in terms of sheer amount of learning to invest these in the older classes. I have heard one authority on the subject ,C. Snow (in a lecture 'Using L1 skills for L2 proficiency: Why older L2 learners are better', at the Conference of the English Teachers' Association of Israel, Jerusalem, 1993) claim that twelve is the optimum age for starting a foreign language in school; my own experience is that ten is about right.

The Italian Ministry of Public Instruction, in its 1993 Interministerial Decree (http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf), states:

The advice of those who study cybernetics applied to pedagogy and foreign language instruction is the

following:

1. That language study begin with elementary school, starting at 8 years of age and with two years of

Esperanto.

2. After the introduction of the foreign language, Esperanto is used in teaching a determined subject, such as geography, as as interscholastic means of communication (correspondence).

3. There are efforts to coordinate the steps necessary in all European Community countries to ensure a

simpler linguistic communication between citizens.

This is practically identical to Halmar Frank's recommendations. In fact, seeing that he's a pedagogical cyberneticst himself, this likely comes form him. Like Ur, he recommends not starting the learning of a foreign ethnic language before the age of ten or eleven. Unlike Ur, however, he suggests that the learning of a planned language like Esperanto can be started at the age of eight, serving as a propaedeutic to the learning of a more difficlut third language later. The British Sprigboard to Languages project also makes reference to propaedeutic language instruction (http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf).

Formaggio in her book makes much the same recommendations as Helmar Frank. In fact, her book is a guide book for Italian elementary school teachers. Formaggio also adds that the advantage younger learners have in learning pronunciaiton is conditional on the teacher's pronunciation being impeccable too, not to mention that it can be overcome in older learners through explanatory instruction.

Canadian research in second language instruction is quite advanced when it comes to immersion instruction. Abroad, however, that research has been applied only in well-funded schools, usually private elite schools. If we're talking about a more economical and efficient means that could be applied across a regular public school system with moderate funding, the immersion model designed for well-funded immersion schools is too idyllic and just does not work. The European research being increasingly applied now is more realistic within the context of a moderately funded pubic school system.

Now that this 'liar' has revealed some of his sources, the ball is now in your court.

[Machjo]

Response to post number 23:

Where are we going to get the money for all of this? Why not adopt policies now being implemented in Europe that are in fact based on hard research and have taken the economic aspects of their policies into consideration in this research?