This link on education reform send me to this blog on foreign languages in Canadian public schools:
The demand for French immersion education in Vancouver so far outstrips the supply that the school board allocates places by lottery.
But why? Is it because French is a useful employment skill? Because learning to speak French makes you a better person? Or is it because parents know intuitively what economists can show econometrically: peer effects matter. Being with high achieving peers raises a student’s own achievement level. . . .
Several studies have found that Anglophones who can speak French enjoy an earning premium. The question is: do bilingual Anglophones earn more because speaking French is a valuable skill in the workplace? Or do they earn more because they’re on average smarter and more capable people (after all, they’ve mastered two languages)?
And the blog features this comments like this:
French immersion classes (as opposed to science, maths or any other subject) are simply a sign of grossly pushy parents convinced that their little darlings have a good chance of running the nation. Or of collecting the rents from being seen to be so….take your pick dependent upon your level of cynicism.
Cyncism indeed. I’d like to take a time out from this mixture of earnest concern for the kids who are not in the French-immersion schools, the challenging econometrics of estimating the effects of foreign-language instruction, and the cynicism inherent in the tern “little darlings”–as if there’s something wrong with wanting the best for one’s children.
Speaking as as American who is, unfortunately, basically monoglot, I see the ability to converse, read, and wrote fluently in a foreign language to be a positive thing in itself. Not because of any “earnings premium” or because of any effect on IQ scores, but just a good in itself. And, we all know that foreign languages are much easier to learn when you’re a little kid.
Finally, if demand for French immersion education in Vancouver outstrips the supply, why don’t they start up some more French-immersion schools? It can’t be so difficult in Canada to find French-speaking teachers, right?
Statistical modeling etc.
How does this all relate to the topics of our blog? The connection is what has been called the “tyranny of measurement.” When people study the effects of education, they look at test scores. Or, if they’re economists, they look at future earnings. And then the good researchers start thinking about estimation issues, data quality, selection bias, etc.
That’s all fine, but it’s a mistake to limit one’s discussion to the standard metrics. This leads to the silliness of considering foreign language skills as a purely positional good or as a method for selecting students, while forgetting the direct benefits of being able to communicate in various ways with different cultures.
Agreed, but in this case a bit of context: as a Canadian I feel the original post has less of the 'misguided explanation' than the 'alternate explanation' feel to it. What's implicit is that learning French is felt to be a kind of civic duty for English Canadians, which is reflected in the quote at the end about "strengthening the fabric of Canadian society" – so in fact, some kind of intrinsic good, although not the one you mentioned (I'd say most Anglophone Canadians would judge the description of French as a "foreign language" to be weird). It's mandatory in school until a certain age in most provinces (although not in BC), and the conventional wisdom to my mind would be that parents mainly put their kids in French immersion for some reason along the lines of "it's an official language"; a casual web search for me turned up mainly people citing the tangible economic benefits (federal government jobs and many jobs that require interaction with Quebec tend to require that you be bilingual), but I would imagine people also tend to give the official language reason explicitly. So my intuition as a Canadian says that, in this case, an intrinsic good explanation (along with a 'real economic benefits' explanation) form a background against which the 'streaming' explanation given is an alternative.
agreed with above – French is not a "foreign language" in Canada
OK. Replace "foreign language" by "second language" in my blog above. I remain disturbed by the mix of cynicism and tyranny-of-measurement exhibited in the quotes above.
Andrew, you attracted the attention of Canadians on this one.
To advance in the Federal system, you have to have a facility in English and French – either as a politician or an employee.
(Imagine if the same requirement as in place in Washington – you had to have a facility in English and Spanish!)
There is minimum cynicism in the article – Canadian humour on the other abounds.
(Have picked up your book Red State, Blue State … and hope to get a review of it out in January – comparing your thoughts with S. Coleridge's explanation of the constitution of the English Parliament.)
Michael:
I can see how there can be concerns of fairness, that people who grew up in areas without good bilingual schooling will have less of a chance of these jobs. But, looking forward, it still seems good for kids to get a chance to learn two or more languages, and I feel that the people quoted above are not considering the intrinsic value of learning multiple languages. If these French-immersion schools are so popular, I hope that more of them can be started. Maybe some immersion schools of other languages too.
Andrew: I hate to get all po-mo here, but what do you mean that learning a second language is "good in itself"?
All else being equal, let's take it as a given that learning is good (my last post on wine aside, the responses to which I still don't understand, because, of course, learning is good).
The question is then why a second language rather than, say, how to hunt, how to play baseball, how to play a musical instrument, how to play chess, how to cook, how to speak in public, or how to fix a car?
Bob:
Sure, all these things are good in themselves. But learning a second or third language is something that kids are particularly good at learning. What bugged me about the discussion I linked to is that nobody seemed to be considering the inherent benefits of learning a foreign language; instead everything was bathed in empty cynicism.
I see more a poverty of measurement than a tyranny of it. As for this "as if there's something wrong with wanting the best for one's children" -I think there's something wrong with it. How about wanting resources allocated to one's children optimized to the efficiency with which they can help improve the persistence outcomes for the rest of us?
Framing the masses in this way make them look like mildly rentier zombie hordes.
On a side note, this over-mass coordination towards the same narrow form of achievement reminds me of Korea, where everyone wants to learn, in this order, (1) English, (2) Japanese, (3) Chinese. A few are interested in Spanish or french as a third, fourth, or fifth language, but not as a second language. Not a bad selection of languages, but it's a failure of macrosocial coordination to get a diversity of second language motivations.
I suspect Britain gets the second language tracking coordination done much better, at least historically.
America is worse, because our third language preference tends to be way out of line with our third language needs, and way way too many people are choosing French for their second language here (too many are probably choosing Spanish, too, proportionately for second language studiers but not absolutely for people that should be learning a second language).
I suspect second language studiers should be some projection of need based on trade communications and other national interactions, and perhaps some level of necessary domestic interaction like Spanish with the US and french with Canda. Who is making that good faith attempt at study and coordination?
"everyone […] in this order"?
Well, in Korea like many other places in the world, it's hardly possible to avoid English at school, even if you would wish to.
But I also happen to know quite a few Koreans who learned or still learn French or German (as 2nd foreign language). And yes, some overzealous parents indeed want their children to learn Japanese (preference shifting to Chinese nowadays) for economical reasons. Coming to think of it, did you hear about the demand for Mandarin speaking nannies in New York?
Closer to topic, as a German who is learning Korean, learning a language opens the door to a new world, culture, friends. I also learned to play an instrument (in public) which is great fun, but won't get you closer to millions of people unless you happen to be Michael Jackson;)
Ah, and if you're just after a "count of foreign languages learned" for your CV, Japanese and Chinese are logical candidates for Koreans, much easier to learn compared with european languages.
"Not Always Anonymous" -I think you completely missed the point of my post, which was flattering to you as a German.
It is logical for an individual Korean to prefer to learn English above all else as a second language, and then Japanese/Chinese.
However, it is not logical for Korean society to be trapped in a situation where more than 90% of Koreans seek to learn English as their second language and Japanese/Chinese as their third language.
Most Korean nationals I talk with about this seem both aware of the obviously deficient systemic design and trapped by it (they still individually seek to learn English and Japanese/Chinese rather than German, for example).
In contrast, I find Brits (or at least Brit elites) notable for their tendency to want to distinguish themselvews by becoming fluent in a relatively unusual language, although too many of them probably want to learn French as a second language, too, given its legacy as an elite signal in the anglosphere.
Bob, there are many reasons for highly valuing learning a second language. A hint at one: Would you be free to question the merit of learning a second language as a non-Anglophone academic working in the 21st century?
To be clear, what I think is flattering to Germans is my implied point that many more people should be studying German as a second and third language, given its economic ties to countries around the world, and also to its in-german intellectual contributions to humanity. I'd add to the non-conclusive list of understudied languages by outsiders: Hindi, and still Chinese (excepting Koreans, of course).
As a "new Canadian" (with 10 years+ of living in English Canada and married to a French Canadian) I do think for the majority of anglophones up here (particularly in the West) French is more of a foreign language than say German or Ukranian. There are "two solitudes" that barely interact beyond "central Canada" and that are mainly foreign to each other. Up until the mid 20th century French Canadians were second class citizens with less education and wealth even in their own province. Hey that sounds like Spanish speaking in the US, maybe the Chicanos in California?
Bilingualism has different value to different people, to different disciplines, to different countries.. communities… etc. Back home in Guatemala bilingual schools are all private, so there is a confound between SES and type of education. In English Canada there are academic requirements to enter a "French immersion" school, and in French Canada and you are an immigrant from a non-English speaking country you must attend a French school unless your parents have attended an English school.
Sorry for the long comment… it is just an issue close to home(s).
As an American, I am quite ignorant of Canadian history. I was surprised by the remark that French Canadians were second-class citizens. Were they denied the franchise or anything like that?
Dr Gelman,I dont disagree at all that being multilingual has personal, professional and societal benefits. But possibly as you teach at a truly elite institution, you may not be considering an additional effect of these immersion schools. You have mentioned you've mentioned how you don't feel you fare well in 1:1 teaching situations. An effect of the immersion schools is the movement of many of the top students who are spread across several schools into one school. A teacher, and the class, loses those students who help other students a lot in modeling behaviour and in actually assisting other students to learn. You benefit from having many exceptional students in your courses and upper years who can help those who are struggling 1:1, when/where you can not.
Side note, its shockingly difficult to find french-speaking teachers in Canada. School boards recruit nationwide for these young teacher candidates. (education and health are provincial domains in Canada. Official Labour mobility is a new phenomena in Canada actually). French is not a subject many want to take throughout high school, and university. And for those young graduates individual school boards do not always fully recognize.
Jeff:
Oui, that makes sense. I can well believe things are complicated. I was just distressed that in the linked discussions, there was no consideration at all of the inherent benefits of learning a second or third language. The discussion seemed to be proceeding as if this were entirely a zero-sum game involving jobs, status, money, and so forth. But it's not zero sum. Learning another language is not just a way to jump the queue; it has inherent benefits. That said, I can see that particular solutions such as immersion schools can create problems even while they're solving others.
Andrew – thank you for picking up my blog post, and for generating this excellent discussion.
I strongly agree with the value of speaking multiple languages – the more, the better. If that does not come out strongly in the original post it may be because, as some of the discussants have pointed out, it's implicit and agreed by all in the policy debate.
Indeed my original post was motivated, in part, by the exclusion of boys, ESL students, children with learning difficulties, etc from the enriched learning environment provided by second language education.
Imagine, if you will, a kindergarten classroom. The teacher wants the students to go to the library. She speaks the words in French and mimes 'going to the library' with appropriate actions. How many girls do you think will pick up on this? How many boys? Predictably – especially in cities like Ottawa with many students in French immersion – the English-only classes are dominated by boys, and they have little chance of learning a second language.
European countries do a good job of teaching children second languages – it's hard to find someone in Germany, for example, who doesn't speak at least English. Yet there are no "English immersion" classes in Germany.
In my ideal world, French-immersion programs would be replaced by an hour or two a day of intense second-language instruction for almost *all* students, so every child gained some fluency in a second language.
The "tyranny of measurement" is something that can apply here but I'd also point out that there's an enormous amount of a "ritual of measurement" (http://eduvoodoo.net).
However, both of these have a counterpart notion in a tyranny of the common/intrinsic good. The problem with it is that the obviousness of the intrinsic good rests with the social prestige of the arbiter. As a multilingual person, I highly recommend this state of being to anyone but I don't feel any intrinsic good attach to this. Whenever I spend time with monolingual friends on either side, I never have a feeling that they in some way miss out on something essential.
In fact, I'd say that multilingualism being an intrinsic good has become a cliche which is very easy to say because it apparently requires little justification. But it doesn't stand the test of obviousness.
First, multilingualism isn't a binary state. People are multilingual in a variety of ways (qualitative and quantitative).
Second, from the perspective of global population multilingualism (with the above proviso) is the default state rather than the exception.
Third, given the variability and ubiquity of multilingualism and comparing the parts of the world where it is default with those where it is not, we can't identify any obvious and outstanding property of either populations or individuals that would point to multilingualism as an intrinsic good. But we can identify lots of them that make it an instrumental good.
The bit about understanding people in other cultures better is equally preposterous. We have enough trouble understanding people who live next door so how is being able to order a baguette or even read Proust going to help us understand the French sufficiently better to make any noticeable difference? Most of the world speaks English but their understanding of US or UK culture is laughable.
Also, saying: "we all know that foreign languages are much easier to learn when you're a little kid" underscores the problem even further. We may all know it but it's not true. Little kids are good at learning their other 'first' languages assuming they have sufficient input. Little kids are awful at learning foreign languages at school if all they get is a couple of hours a week. Even the immersion programme discussed in the blog post and originating article only resulted in about 40% participants achieving advanced level in French.
So why don't we talk instead of a "tyranny of reductionism". Whether we reduce problems to measurements of things that can be counted or things that 'wise men' say are good, we're still doing the same kind of damage.
We need to work hard at discovering the nature of things and then treat them as what they are rather than as something else that has built-in justificatory mechanisms. Self-similarity is a wonderful thing but it' still just similarity.
@Frances Woolley
It is extremely easy to find people in Germany who can't have conversation in English (or even give directions).
The successes of EU countries in teaching foreign languages to their populations vary greatly. Smaller nations do well, larger nations not so well (to generalize grossly). Try having a conversation with 10 random strangers in English in Spain or Italy compared with Denmark or Hungary.
T