Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

10 comment(s)

Institute promotes public discourse

To The Editor:

Last week, you published an article calling the Canadian Institute for Research on Public Policy and Public Administration (CIRPPPA) "a group."

Our institute was mentioned because of our ads in the three English-language dailies of the province stating what research has to say about second-language acquisition in New Brunswick: if parents want their child to learn French, they should send him/her to French-language day cares and schools.

A handful of people called to express thanks for being "original" and "informative," but one caller said our "group" should not be involved and another took us to task for criticizing the Liberals.

Permit me to correct a few erroneous perceptions for the benefit of your readers.

First, the CIRPPPA was established in 1983 as an independent not-for-profit institute that conducts fundamental and applied research in economic development, education, health, municipal governance and other public sectors. Formerly known as the Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, it was headed by Donald J. Savoie until 2004.

We employ four senior researchers, all with PhDs, and three junior researchers, all with a postgraduate degree, and conduct local, provincial, national and international research.

Second, the CIRPPPA's Board of Directors, chaired by the Université de Moncton's President Yvon Fontaine, asks us to stimulate public debates and participate in these debates to improve public discourse and public policies. As an independent research institute, we can convey facts and arguments that are objective and based on research. As the Scottish proverb states, "May opinion never float on the waves of ignorance."

We got involved in this timely issue to inform and enrich the discussion. We will not shy away from assuming our intellectual responsibilities because we want contracts from governments. Our institute's reputation is based on quality research and integrity.

Finally, the CIRPPPA did not take sides in the early-vs-late immersion debate. This is a very important public issue, as shown by the passionate reactions to the government's decision. Our intention was simple: we wanted parents and citizens to see the forest for the trees and appreciate the research in neurocognitive science and sociolinguistics.

If the government's goal is to make New Brunswick's children bilingual (whether we agree or not with the goal is another matter), research says the best intervention would be during early childhood. We can learn many languages and more easily between one and six years of age. It would be more effective and efficient to invest in French-language day cares than in immersion programs.

It would be wise to think outside the "education box" on this issue. Schools also play an important role in second-language acquisition, and minority-language schools are the most effective mechanisms to do so.

This does not mean that all children will become bilingual if they go to French-language day cares and schools, but research clearly demonstrates that these institutions significantly increase their odds.

Daniel Bourgeois,

Executive Director,

CIRPPPA,

Moncton

(Via e-mail)

Legacy of a bad decision

To The Editor:

Liberal Reform in New Brunswick

1. Suppress and ignore the recommendations of a previously commissioned study of French Second Language programs by recognized FSL experts.

2. Commission another study by two individuals with no FSL expertise.

3. Release the second report for public comment.

4. Assure concerned citizens, parents, and Liberal Party insiders that early French immersion will continue.

5. Disregard critiques of the report authors' ignorance of the literature, shoddy statistical analysis, one-sided use of qualitative feedback, and drastic recommendations for New Brunswick FSL, recommendations based on a "leap of faith" concerning a relatively untested new program.

6. Write off negative public reaction as the work of a supposedly selfish parental lobby group.

7. Ignore a letter to the premier from one of the authors of the first report identifying significant problems with the second report's recommendations.

8. Inform Cabinet colleagues of one's intention to accept those recommendations, with little or no ensuing discussion within Cabinet.

9. Precipitously announce the intention to implement the recommendations, presenting them as daring and creative solutions to (falsely defined) problems with FSL and (supposedly) non-inclusive implications of (so-called) "streaming".

10. Dismiss as unconvincing expressions of concern from Canada-wide research advisors to the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.

11. Gag New Brunswick teachers, school administrators, and civil servants dismayed by the decision.

The result?

Upset civil servants, frustrated administrators, and shocked teachers; anxious students and outraged parents and grandparents; concerned provincial and federal Commissioners of Official Languages and an apprehensive Provincial Ombudsman; animated blogs, letters to the editor, and radio commentaries; public meetings, divisive debates, and marches on the streets; the revival of public expressions of anti-French sentiment; anticipated out-migration of highly qualified personnel; and (on the positive side) discontinued Liberal Party memberships, withdrawn donations, and foregone votes.

What a proud legacy!

Berkeley Fleming,

Sackville

(Via Canadaeast.com)