[lg policy] New Brunswick: Provincial language policy for daycares is becoming a contentious issue

Sun Nov 21 21:11:25 UTC 2010

A controversy is brewing on early childhood and official languages in
New Brunswick.

Each topic is very important on its own. Combined, they can acerbate
linguistic tensions. New legislation on early childhood is creating
concerns in francophone and anglophone circles that, luckily, can be
resolved by a solution so simple a child could have conceived it. But
unless the adults governing this province open their minds, the
opportunity may be lost, and tensions will aggravate.

Provincial language policy for daycares is becoming a contentious
issue, though one that researcher Daniel Bourgeois believes can be
resolved to the benefit of students and bilingualism.

The new legislation

Last April, the Legislative Assembly adopted a new Early Learning and
Childcare Act to "foster the early development of young children so
they become healthy, self-sufficient and productive adults." Early
childhood education is so important to our society that the Minister
of Social Development regulates and inspects the allocation of
childcare services in terms of the number of children, space per
child, health, nutrition and safety, and provides public funds to over
500 recognized childcare centres. Also, following an extensive
literature review of research and best practices on child development
and early learning from around the world and consultations with
experts, the minister decided to test integrated early childhood
development centres as a way to better integrate early childhood
services and supports for parents and young children. The minister
also established experiential-based curricula, one for each official
language group.

This is where the language issue comes in. The two curricula are based
on 10 values our society wishes on our children: (1) inclusiveness and
equity, (2) compassion and caring, (3) living democratically, (4)
individuality and independence, (5) social responsibility, (6)
communication, (7) imagination, creativity and play, (8) aesthetics,
(9) spirituality, and (10) zest for living and learning. These values
are commendable, but concerns have been raised in regards to
"communication," notably bilingualism. This will be my focus.

Supporting documents to the strategy explain that "determining what is
in children's best interests requires ongoing conversation,
communication, and negotiation," and that these interests "must be
understood in the context of their dynamic relationships with
families, communities, languages, and cultures." The documents also
value "diversities" and "communication in all its forms, for its
capacity to transmit feelings, language, and other cultural
knowledge." They also honour "all individual, social, linguistic and
cultural differences." Moreover, they espouse "children's rights to
the basic necessities of life and the inclusion of their cultures and
languages in everyday experiences." They argue that "home languages
and literacies" should be honoured. Finally, they indicate how
children will grow in their understanding of the conventions of
languages and vocabulary, develop confidence in using languages, use
language in various contexts, learn language through various daily
means, etc.

Again, it is hard to find fault with the logic and intentions.
However, there are two concerns that merit attention. First,
linguistic duality in the curriculum poses a danger to the French
language. Second, the focus on "home languages and literacies" misses
a golden opportunity to improve our children's bilingualism and to
reduce government costs in that regard.

French-language curriculum and duality

The provincial strategy recognized our two official language
communities and designed a French curriculum "for francophones by
francophones which stresses the importance of cultural belonging and
integration." It also gave special consideration to "francisation," to
strengthen the necessary language skills in children who will enrol in
French language schools but have linguistic challenges. However,
francophone elites have expressed concern that, when providing
services to infants or preschool children, the operator of a licensed
facility "shall use one or both of the curriculum frameworks" provided
by theminister. In their opinion, the use of both curricula within the
same daycare could assimilate the minority francophone children.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights does not include early
childhood services as "primary and secondary school instruction," and
Section 16 of the same Charter does not explicitly state that daycares
are distinct educational or cultural institutions necessary for the
preservation and promotion of francophone communities. Nevertheless,
francophone elites argue that French-language daycares and curriculum
should be distinct from English-language establishments and be part of
the province's dual education system. There should thus be no
bilingual daycares; each language community should have its own
centres.

Home language vs minority-language acquisition

The linguistic aspects of the issue have not stirred as much interest
among anglophones. Yet judging from the passion that erupted when the
Graham government modified French immersion programs in 2008, the
early childhood strategy will touch a nerve.

Although the strategy is correct to focus on "home language," children
can also learn other languages. Indeed, research in linguistic
neurocognition reveal that children learn languages most effectively
between birth and the age of six, and they can learn many languages
during that span. Thus, if parents want their children to be bilingual
(or multilingual), they would be wise to expose their children to
other languages before they go to school. And if the New Brunswick
government was wise, it would invest in multilingual learning through
its early childhood curriculum managed by the Department of Social
Development rather than (or in addition to) its school curriculum
managed by the Department of Education.

In short, properly-funded and trained daycares should achieve better
linguistic results than early or late French immersion programs. Kids
could enter kindergarten fully bilingual. Our schools would only have
to improve their knowledge, including vocabulary. And daycares can
attain better results at a much lower cost than schools, because
teachers are paid much more than daycare workers.

Apparently, the curriculum was developed "with the input of the
Department of Education," and is "designed to expose children to a
variety of environments and opportunities for learning and
relationship-building once they enter school" and to compliment the
current primary school curriculums and provide "the basis for a smooth
transition." That does not appear to be the case in regards to
learning languages. The strategy should have included bilingualism as
our 11th value.

The solution

The solution is very simple: establish publicly-funded French-language
daycares throughout the province. One exception could be considered:
English-language daycares in the Acadian Peninsula (and elsewhere) to
meet many parents' request for greater proficiency in English for
their kids. Other daycares could also be permitted, but they should
not be funded to the same extent.

Indeed, if official languages are a fundamental value in New
Brunswick, we must choose the most effective means to that end. The
fact that daycares are less expensive than schools supports this
solution.

French-language daycares would resolve the two concerns expressed earlier.

First, they would not put French-language children at risk of English
assimilation within bilingual establishments. And second, they would
ensure that English-language children would learn French more
effectively and at a significantly reduced cost to all taxpayers in
New Brunswick. Better and cheaper. Anglophone parents need not worry:
their child will easily learn English and will easily be able to speak
French at the daycare and English at home. Children are smarter than
we think. If only adults were.

Daniel Bourgeois is executive director of the Beaubassin Institute,
which "conducts applied and academic research to stimulate public
discourse and improve public policies."

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1316502

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list