Should language policy be based on politics or research?

[Machjo]

When discussing language policy, I often come across people coming up with the same old answers (i.e. increase funding and second-language instruction time, and teach them wile they're younger).

However, research in Europe has already proven that this does not work. Formaggio, Frank, Ur, Piron, Liu Haitao, and others have shown that below a certain age, the benefits of classroom instruction in a second language is negligible (since many of the factors contributing to bilingualism in immigrant or minority families are simply not reproducible in a classroom environment), and that pupils who start at a later age often close the gap by the end of high school. Ur recommends starting at the age of ten. Frank also recommends ten or eleven for ethnic languages, but eight for planned languages. Piron, Formaggio, and Frank recommend that starting with a planned language as the second language so as to build the necessary aptitude for the learning of a more difficult third language later, with weaker pupils being required to continue with the second-language and only those with proven ability going on to the more difficult third language.

Grin (a trained economist who has entered the field of economic language research)has also shown that maintaining universal fluency in two difficult and dissimilar languages in a monolingual community is highly expensive and is generally not sustainable except perhaps in an elite private school setting.

The Italian, Polish, Croatian, British, and especially Hungarian ministries of education have already adopts some of the findings of this recent research. In all of these countries, for instance, each school is free to teach the second language of its choice so as to be able to exploit natural local advantages as they may occur. In Hungary, pupils are even free to select the second language to be tested in for high school graduation. And in all of these countries, Esperanto is also allowed to fulfill this requirement in recognition of the fact that languages are difficult to learn.

In Canada, though, I get the impression that language acquisition policy is based far more on political expediency than hard research findings, and this needs ot change if we want to increase the rate of bilingualism in Canada.

[William Ashley]

Funding isn't always the answer to problems, a working strategy is the answer. The fact is that teaching children will yeild adults with those skills. Giving teens the oppourtunities to does not, at nearly the same level yeild the same result. The missing component is ongoing learning. A maximum of 5 years of casual language learning will NOT make you fluent in that language. 12 years; however, of immersion gives you a much better perception of a language. You would have to be mentally retarded not to understand that concept. That is suffering from severe brain damage and or long term alcoholism to the point of chronic stupidity. While the age of 8 isn 't much off the mark, exposure to the target language at an earlier age isn't bad. The thing is though that time can be saved by teaching parallel language structures together, and that is what you are missing, it isn't solely second language aquisition, but general improvement of literacy, and the time it takes for that.

A program that was effective at literacy improvements and teaching of both official languages is what is required, not two independent programs that reteach the same literary concepts. Likewise thing like teaching cognates in unison and pointing out false cognates in unison are other examples of effective language learning. 9 times out of 10 immersion students are WAY more intelligent and literate than non immersion students from my experiences.

You also have to understand in monolingual areas teenagers with free choice to pick their courses, and being zombies without an effective conceptualization of the world at that age, may not make the right choices, so they won't even attempt to learn the language. Early language exposure sidesteps the irresponsibility and sense of rebellion of many teenagers. That is why a manditory start to finish official languages learning program should be implemented to insure that Canadians know both Canadian official languages.

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

Funding isn't always the answer to problems, a working strategy is the answer. The fact is that teaching children will yeild adults with those skills. Giving teens the oppourtunities to does not, at nearly the same level yeild the same result.

Teens I agree with. They should start as early as research indicates is valuable and will give the best results. From the various books I've read, if they are starting with an ethnic language as their second language, the age of ten is generally the recommended minimum below which the results are too limited, resulting in those who do start at around the age of ten catching up by the end of high school, bringing the initial edge of the younger group to nought. Money-wise, and time wise, that does not make sense.

The missing component is ongoing learning. A maximum of 5 years of casual language learning will NOT make you fluent in that language.

Claude Piron recommends 2,000 hours of quality instruction time to ensure a decent level of competence for most languages. And when he says quality instruction, I'm sure e doesn't mean the endless repetition of nursery rhymes as is taught to very young children, or time wasted in classroom discipline trying to keep a pupil focussed on a language the value of which he does not understand. According to Formaggio, it's only after about the age of eight that a child really has a grasp of his mother-tongue. Needless to say, a child who does not know his own mother tongue well will not learn a second-language well either. It will be a waste of time. So if we're looking at expanding instruction time to 2,000 hours, it would be best to add them in the later years, starting at the age of ten at the youngest. But then of course the question becomes, how do we fit 2,000 hours of second-language instruction time between the age of ten and the end of compulsory education (unless of course we intend to make university free and compulsory too?)?

12 years; however, of immersion gives you a much better perception of a language.

But if you start those twelve years at the age of five, let's say, the child is likely to learn little for the first 5 of those twelve years, making those twelve years roughly equivalent to let's say 6 years had they started later. So in that case it would make more sense to either add more hours in fewer years or add more years of compulsory instruction.

You would have to be mentally retarded not to understand that concept.

Both Formaggio and Frank researched it and found that pupils who start too early do not earn nearly as much on an hourly basis than those who start later. Clearly, a 5-year old learning a nursery rhyme for an hour won't learn nearly as much as a ten-year old being taught poem of roughly equal difficulty but age-appropriate of course, along with an ability to understand its grammatical features at a conscious level. In fact, by the end of that hour, the older child will likely remember at least part of the lesson, whereas the younger one will likely need to be retaught the nursery rhyme quite a few times more before he remembers it (an till not understand it in nearly as much depth). Clearly you recognize the difference between quantitative learning and qualitative learning.

That is suffering from severe brain damage and or long term alcoholism to the point of chronic stupidity.

If we ignore the difference between qualitative and quantitative learning time, then I agree with you. From the standpoint of economics though, I'd rather focus on qualitative time.

While the age of 8 isn 't much off the mark, exposure to the target language at an earlier age isn't bad.

Again, what kind of exposure are you talking about? I'm sure that as a trained teacher you can tell the difference between a young child being exposed to a second language daily in the home with one on one instruction and more than one teacher per child (parents, family friends or extended family, etc.), and a need to learn the language to communicate daily needs, and a child being exposed to the language a couple hours a week in a classroom with 20 other children, all speaking the same common mother tongue, one teacher between them (also knowing the same language), and no clear understanding of how this could be of any use to them in their lives at that age. Needless to say, a teacher won't accomplish nearly as much under such circumstances. Add to that, that the teacher cannot even exploit shortcuts to accelerate the pupil's learning. He can't engage the pupils in comparing the grammars of the two languages, for example, since they don't even know their own language. Also, since they might not have mastered a large vocabulary in their own language, they are not very capable of self-instruction either, let alone be motivated to do so.

The thing is though that time can be saved by teaching parallel language structures together, and that is what you are missing, it isn't solely second language aquisition, but general improvement of literacy, and the time it takes for that.

After the age of about eight at the earliest, or if it's a language they are also exposed to in the home, then I can agree. But try that with a class of five-year-olds raised in a monolingual family.

To take a few examples:

1. A five year old living in a predominantly Mandarin-Chinese-speaking community in Vancouver:Certainly he could probably start learning both Chinese and English at the same time starting right at the age of five, owing to community support for both languages outside the classroom.

2. The same child learning French and English in the classroom. Chances are, owing to his parents' busy schedule, he can only speak Chinese and not write it. Seeing that he's still struggling with both Chinese and English, and that there is no support for French in the community outside the classroom, and a generla awareness on the part of the child of the value of Chinese over French, how likely is it that this method will work very well for him?

3. A monolingual child in a monolingual community being exposed to an easy planned language as his second language. The planned nature of the language makes the grammar and word-roots more obvious, thus also helping to build his confidence in language learning. He's not likely to achieve the same with French owing owing to exceptions to the rules, silent letters, redundant rules, etc. holding him back from rapid progress. Even when he remembers a rule, he may be hesitant to apply it if he can't remember the exceptions. In a planned language without exceptions, there is no need of such fears, allowing the child to use it quite freely and confidently, thus building his confidence in other languages too, not to mention his enjoyment of the language

A program that was effective at literacy improvements and teaching of both official languages is what is required, not two independent programs that reteach the same literary concepts. Likewise thing like teaching cognates in unison and pointing out false cognates in unison are other examples of effective language learning. 9 times out of 10 immersion students are WAY more intelligent and literate than non immersion students from my experiences.

This can be achieved with any second language, and not just French. And as pointed out above, French might not be the best option i all cases, and might even be harmful as a discouragement from learning other languages if not approached cautiously. A child who succeeds in learning his second language, no matter what language it is, is likely to have the confidence and will to try a third language. One who fails his second language will likely not want to try a third. Looking at it that way, achieving bilingualism is more important than achieving bilingualism in a particular language, because success can lead to trilingual ism later, while failure can ensure permanent monolingualism.

[William Ashley]

-

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

-

Edited December 25, 2009 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

"the results are too limited, resulting in those who do start at around the age of ten catching up by the end of high school, bringing the initial edge of the younger group to nought."

I disagree, I think your study is wrong. The longer you are exposed to and use the language the more development there will be. Also the people starting later will catch up makes no sense. Where is the continued learning of the other group. This clearly indicates the younger learners didn't have instruction while the other group did, or they had ineffective instruction. Your argument is nonsense. Starting at an earlier age and providing more time for skill aquisition if managed effectively will ALWAYS yeild better results.

Is a decent level fluent? I agree that time should be spent effectively; however, the fact time exists to be used, doesn't mean it is being used ineffectively, that is a nonsense presumption. I would have to say that children who are younger than 9 very well can use and remember language so your age of 9 or 10 age level is also nonsense. Your study from Formaggio in this matter is total nonsense, what is the paper / book your are citing and its year of publication? I still think that starting at age 4 and continueing to the age of 18 or 19 is the way to go giving about 15 years of exposure to both official languages. While the program itself would be ramped much like the English language program is with overlap of instruction removed, I think that long term exposure WILL always have better results. None of your studies will indicate that is not the case, and it will only show rhetoric rather than the fact that starting students at a younger age.. not limiting when those 2000 hours will exist. That isn't the thing, it is not limiting it to 2000 hours it is starting at an earlier age and givning them more time eg. 5000 hours vs. 2000 hours. The results are better when starting at a younger age and continueing until the end of highschool vs. just doing highschool or just from the age of 10.

You are limiting the amount of time with your other arguments, that isn't at all what I'm saying, I'm saying start them earlier and keep it going, not start later spend less time when they learn better.

[Machjo]

"the results are too limited, resulting in those who do start at around the age of ten catching up by the end of high school, bringing the initial edge of the younger group to nought."

I disagree, I think your study is wrong. The longer you are exposed to and use the language the more development there will be.

This can be achieved in different ways though. One is, as you propose, starting at a younger age. Another could be to just increase the number of hour of instruction per year by adding more days to the school year. And yet a third could be to extend the number of compulsory years of education. Quantitatively speaking, all of these can achieve the results you intend. Qualitatively though, not at all. The two last options are likely to yield far better results than the first.

Also the people starting later will catch up makes no sense. Where is the continued learning of the other group. This clearly indicates the younger learners didn't have instruction while the other group did, or they had ineffective instruction. Your argument is nonsense. Starting at an earlier age and providing more time for skill aquisition if managed effectively will ALWAYS yeild better results.

You're missing a few points though. If they start at a younger age, most of their learning is memorization (unless they speak a second language in the home of course, but that's not what we're talking about here in the context of a truly foreign language). As a result, while this might improve their pronunciation, when they become older, they'll have to relearn much of it at a more conscious level. This relearning period is the reason they other group essentially catches up and th edifferences are not as great as would be expected based on the extra time invested. Just read up on the field research conducted by Frank and Formagio. You can also read up on it in Ur's book (and that last one is available in English for your benefit too). Based on actual comparative groups in a number of European countries, they have found that a group that starts at an appropriate age will soon catch up with the younger group, with possibly only pronunciation being slightly better (and this, bear in mind, is with the younger group having invested much more study time in earlier years). But for all the extra hours spent, it's not worth it for such a small reward when the same could have been achieved in far few er hours by the older group if they just continue. For example, a group studying from the ages of 5 to 17 is likely to achieve much less than one studying from the ages of 10 to 22 with the same study schedule.

Obviously for practical reasons, this might also not be possible owing to work or family responsibilities if they can't go on to university. However, this can be compensated for, as Frank and Formagio suggest, by investing more time in the mother tongue at the earlier stage so as to free more time for the learning of the foreign language at a more appropriate age. Looking at it that way, it would make more sense to squeeze the same amount of foreign language study hours in let's say a 4-year period between the ages of 10 and 15 than during a 9 year period from 5 to 15. To compensate for the time taken, more time spent learning the mother tongue in the earlier years could free more time for the foreign language in the later years.

Another recommendaiton of Formagio's and Frank'sis to adopt a propaedeutic approach (http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf). This essentially involves learning an easy planned language as the second language between the ages of eight and 11, and then a third more difficult language starting then, the idea being that the second language will accelerate the learning of the third considerably. One study found, for example that Polish students learning Esperanto for one year followed by three years of French achieved the same results in their French studies as students who'd learnt French for four years. Some had even achieved better results. This may counter common sense, but hard research trumps common sense sometimes. It has to do in part with the confidence built along with the skills learnt in the second language that can be transfered to the third. If the second language is particularly easy to learn, then the time spent learning it is inferior to the time saved in the third language. This is what I mean when I say we need to focus on qualitative and not quantitative instruction. it may be that we need to increase funding and instruction time. That does not negate the need to apply the latest research though. The problem I see in Canada and most Western European countries is that they get so lost in politics that they fail to apply hard research findings to their language education policies. This is where we can all learn more from our Eastern European counterparts especially.

Is a decent level fluent? I agree that time should be spent effectively; however, the fact time exists to be used, doesn't mean it is being used ineffectively, that is a nonsense presumption. I would have to say that children who are younger than 9 very well can use and remember language so your age of 9 or 10 age level is also nonsense. Your study from Formaggio in this matter is total nonsense, what is the paper / book your are citing and its year of publication?

Lingva Orientado Per Esperanto en la Unua-Grada Lernejo: Gvidlibro por Instruistoj, 1993. It also influenced the Ministry of Public Instruction (translation available in English) (http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf). It too makes reference to Frank, and makes any policy statement of the Ontario Ministry of Education on second language instruction look like child's play. Again, don't confuse children who have a chance to learn the language outside of classroom instruction with those who don't. Those who do not only get more instruction time, but have a better understanding of other linguistic concepts, such as code switching, diglossia as it might occur in the family, and an understanding of the appropriate times to use which language. The one learning his second language in the classroom only not only gets less instruction time, but until he actually has a chance to learn the language well, he has little understanding of how useful it really is. After all, everyone in town can understand him. If you feel more comfortable with research from English-speaking countries, then try Ur's 'A course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory' (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521449946). She too aggressively debunks the myth of the younger the better, again referring to hard research and experience in the field.

I still think that starting at age 4 and continueing to the age of 18 or 19 is the way to go giving about 15 years of exposure to both official languages. While the program itself would be ramped much like the English language program is with overlap of instruction removed, I think that long term exposure WILL always have better results. None of your studies will indicate that is not the case, and it will only show rhetoric rather than the fact that starting students at a younger age.. not limiting when those 2000 hours will exist. That isn't the thing, it is not limiting it to 2000 hours it is starting at an earlier age and givning them more time eg. 5000 hours vs. 2000 hours. The results are better when starting at a younger age and continueing until the end of highschool vs. just doing highschool or just from the age of 10.

I never said limiting it to 2,000 hours. I said that is the MINIMUM recommended for most languages. So you agree with me here but just didn't realize it. Of course extreme quantitative learning will yield results, but at what cost? firs off, there's the money involved. You're looking at it too idealistically. Politically, no government would be willing to invest that sum of money. Even in multilingual Europe only the most elite private schools get that kind of funding, along with perhaps Canadian immersion schools. To extend this to all schools though would be politically impossible even in Europe, let alone Canada.

Alternatively, there is the option of cutting out other subjects, but then it's learning one thing at the cost of another. This again is where qualitative learning is absolutely crucial, and where we could learn form our Hungarian and Italian counterparts. We need to implement the latest research so as to increase hourly learning performance. I'm not disputing the idea of increasing funding and study time. But realistically, politically and financially and in terms of human resources, a more research-based approach is needed aimed at maximizing hourly learning time, with any increase in funding or teaching time being an added bonus.

You are limiting the amount of time with your other arguments, that isn't at all what I'm saying, I'm saying start them earlier and keep it going, not start later spend less time when they learn better.

Again, research has shown that on an hourly basis, they do learn better at a later age. So if the goal is to add more study time, it ought to be added after the age of ten, either by adding more days to the school year or through some other strategy, but certainly not by wasting their time with nursery rhymes.

Propaedeutic instruction in a planned language could also start at the age of eight so as to exploit its propaedeutic value to the learning of the third language starting at the age of ten.

All I'm saying is that, as fine as increased funding and teaching time are, those are political questions that are never guaranteed. So ideally, we should focus on efficiency, with any quantitative improvement being an added bonus.

[William Ashley]

While adding hours later on is a good idea, I think that total bilingual development requires you to have as many hours in the native language as the target language. While this may require relatively FEW hours in the early stages, the number of hours could be increased as it took more hours to stay in sync with native language aquisition. I still believe modeling both languages at the same time will provide for native like brain process, because words would be mutually wired and later language pathways would be created based on sequential use. I must make it clear this is not a 5 years from age 4 to 9 or 5 years from age 13 to 18, this is a 12 years or 5 years issue, and the number of hours will be as required or available. I personally believe there will be time saving by merging the two languages together for common structures. Eg. Punctuation, or cognates, or essay writting, or short story writting. I think it saves time and provides for more learning time by modeling this way.

I disagree with your ascertation because we don't have control of their education in later years, we do in younger years that is why it needs to start early not later, because they won't do it later. Not only for intrest but the 10 to 20% of students who don't even finish high school. I don't think you can compare two groups of students about their results, as this depends on scued testing, teaching methods and learning styles and abilities of the students. The controls arn't good enough. Different students learn different ways and teacher should adapt based on learning styles for best results. Also what you teach young people isn't necisarily the best material for older people, any teacher should be aware of this, and why the study isn't structured or able to be structured to give meaningful results.

What does poor teaching have to do with this? Fact is students should have teachers who teach as well in school as students getting lessons outside of school. That is an entirely different issue, and may have to do with curriculum or expecations or environment. These are issues that could also be addressed.

I personally don't feel it takes a lot of resources. What resources are required in the digital age?

I digress I still beleive aquisition stage based learning is the best method for learning a language.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Machjo]

In response to post number 8:

If you're talking about unlimited resources, by all means you are right. The earlier the better. What I'm referring to is taking the reality of the economic context into account. Resources are not unlimited (schools have access to limited funding and so can afford only so many teachers to teach pupils for so many hours per week) and as such must decide on how to use these resources as efficiently as possible. Seeing that second-language teachers are generally harder to come by, we obviously don't want to waste such a precious resource in teaching a bunch of nursery rhymes to young kids. Instead, we want the regular teachers teaching the kids what they need to know in their own language first so that when they do finally start learning their second language, they're not wasting the foreign language teacher's precious time in teaching what the other teacher could have taught already, such as basic reading and writing in the mother tongue, letter formation, and basic grammar. This way, the foreign language teacher can exploit the children's knowledge of their first language to accelerate their learning of their second. And this way, we can stretch this precious resource still further. Imagine a school that is short of foreign language teachers but quite able to access plenty of teachers for the mother tongue. Do you really think it wise to be using the foreign language teacher to teach the child what a noun is when the other teachers could have done that just as well? Instead, you want the other teachers teaching what a noun is so that the foreign language teacher could focus instead on teaching how to use a noun in a sentence in the foreign language. To use a foreign language teacher to teach what a regular teacher could teach is like using a highly qualified aerospace engineer to to build a kite while you're short of highly qualified aerospace engineers already and qualified kite-makers are are accessible in town. What you're proposing is not an efficient use of human resources.

[William Ashley]

If you're talking about unlimited resources, by all means you are right. he earlier the better.

I wasn't refering to unlimited resources. There are finite factors, such as time, and personnel. The material needs for language instruction are evaporating as technologies such as computers and viewing screens/monitors became standard in most public schools. While personnel are required using available instructors which must exist at the school, and provide both them and their students a legacy learning capacity. That is for both the instructors and their students to master the materials as they grow, using a finite level of resources, eg. bandwidth, and a team of national bilingual instrutors, enables language learning to be accessable, low cost, and easily delivered. Best of all it offers language learning growth potentials to the teachers also. I think that bridging resources and capacities to best implement a program in a non linear setting is what is required. The dynamics of boards around Canada are very stochastic and ambient in nature, and won't fall into a streamlined program, but the tools can be streamlined. Like most curriculum, it may need to be adapted, but providing the materials and the program itself is part of that. Clearly there are some teachers who are bilingual, and there are teachers who are not. Getting teachers trained and able to deliver the materials is part of the first stage. There is nothing wrong with skills development for teachers, especially when it is delivered at no cost to them. Undoubtedly many will already have the skills needed for the first few years of the program roll out, and for those who don't learning what a elementary student needs to learn would require minimal effort. Many highschools already have a upsized French Department.

Do you really think it wise to be using the foreign language teacher to teach the child what a noun is when the other teachers could have done that just as well? Instead, you want the other teachers teaching what a noun is so that the foreign language teacher could focus instead on teaching how to use a noun in a sentence in the foreign language.

Teachers often have to repeat things more than once, and more examples would help reinforce the concept. But no that is not what I implied. I implied that they teach parallel structures at the same time. And while that teaching may seem like teaching more, it is actually teaching less because it only needs to be taught once not twice 10 years down the road.

I think part of human resources is human resource development, and this program not only delivers to Youth, but also delivers to the instructors at schools themselves. I would hope that teachers would embrace learning new knowledge and integrating new components into their instruction.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the interesting thread on this topic, well done.

I find the thread title confusing though - usually 'language policy' in Canada refers to policies of bilingualism and the like, but this thread is about the effectiveness of language instruction in the education system.

[Shwa]

I find the thread title confusing though - usually 'language policy' in Canada refers to policies of bilingualism and the like, but this thread is about the effectiveness of language instruction in the education system.

In Canada, though, I get the impression that language acquisition policy is based far more on political expediency than hard research findings, and this needs ot change if we want to increase the rate of bilingualism in Canada.

As a parent of bilingual children, there was no "political expediency" in their "language acquisition." They had the opportunity to take French Immersion and took it from am early age and have maintained their language skills even during a fully English high school career. Learning languages is a very good thing!

In the Federal Government FR "language acquisition" is required for positions where A) a manager will have staff that have FR as their mother tongue or; staff might serve both FR & EN clients. There are limited exceptions of course, but the policy is for practical reasons.

[Machjo]

As a parent of bilingual children, there was no "political expediency" in their "language acquisition." They had the opportunity to take French Immersion and took it from am early age and have maintained their language skills even during a fully English high school career. Learning languages is a very good thing!

In the Federal Government FR "language acquisition" is required for positions where A) a manager will have staff that have FR as their mother tongue or; staff might serve both FR & EN clients. There are limited exceptions of course, but the policy is for practical reasons.

I admit that the title of the thread is somewhat deceiving. I should have said 'language education policy'.

I myself had the opportunity to go to a French-medium elementary school in Ottawa until I'd moved to Victoria BC, after which I continued my elementary school studies there in a French-medium school until high school when I'd switched over to an English-medium school owing to the excessive distance of the elementary school from the suburb where I lived. I later had the opportunity to work in the province of Quebec. Add to that that my mother is French-speaking and French is one of my mother-tongues.

That being said, I cannot deny that part of this opportunity was owing quite simply to luck. Had I not lived in a bilingual region of Canada such as Ottawa or at least an urban environment such as Victoria, I probably would never have had that opportunity.

You are looking at it from the standpoint of what can benefit you and your children if you are lucky enough to live near such a school. This is hardly how government policy ought to be developed. It ought to focus on what is best for the whole community and not just for those who have the chance to go to such well-funded schools.

[Machjo]

Just to take an example, I can't imagine a small town in BC being able to afford French immersion, either financially or resource-wise. To expand this nationwide would simply be unsustainable, and therefore ought to be limited to private schools paid for by the parents. As for policy that applies across the board, one has to be developed that can benefit small towns as much as larger cities. The only way I can see that happening is in fact to give each school the freedom to teach the second language of its choice according to the resources at its disposal, and to allow each pupil to be tested in the language of his choice again according to whatever language he may have had the chance to learn. Otherwise, we are simply relegating many Canadians to monolingualism by forcing them to learn a language other than the one they could most easily have acquired, owing to lack of qualified resources, etc.

[bjre]

In Canada, though, I get the impression that language acquisition policy is based far more on political expediency than hard research findings, and this needs ot change if we want to increase the rate of bilingualism in Canada.

Research always need money. Business can give money.

Election need money. Business can give money.

If Politician work for Large Business, they are more likely get more money for election.

If Research work for Large Business, they are more likely get more money for research.

So that more and more politicians work for large business people.

So that more and more research work for large business and try to prove result business people want.

I am not sure which science is scientific enough without ignore the evidences that may not good to the result business people like.

Edited December 30, 2009 by bjre

[Guest TrueMetis]

Seriously bjre learn some basic grammar I'm tired of trying to decode what you say.