for civic integration or to begin post-secondary education.
They found that an estimated 103 hours of study per person per year for 6 years would be necessary (600 mil ion hours of English language instruction per year for 6 years for over 5 mil ion immigrants). This number of instructional hours is comparable to the number provided to immigrants in other countries, such as Australia and Germany). However, the costs of implementing such a plan would be significant.'
First of al it is curious that they estimate the adults can learn so much faster than the school kids. (600 hours versus 7,000 hours). It is not surprising that they postulate that only by bringing these five mil ion immigrants to classrooms will they ever learn.
What would happen if we assumed that the classroom was irrelevant to language learning?
What would happen if we assumed that all the studies, research, teacher training, workshops, conferences etc. on language learning and ESL were more for the teachers, researchers, professors and conference goers, than for the language learners?
What would happen if we started to notice that what the learners do away from the classroom, what they read and listen to, or what movies they watch, who their friends and acquaintances are, where they work, how motivated they are, al of these things are more important than the number of classroom instructional hours, and what kind of classroom techniques are used?
CHAPTER IX: EDUCATORS
Language education has been the preserve of the experts. These are people who have studied linguistics, or grammar. They often have certificates of languages instruction. The public sector is heavily involved in language instruction but private schools and testing companies are also active. It seems, though, as if the prevailing methodology is the same and the results are often disappointing.
I have been reading Anna Karenina by Tolstoy in Russian and at one point Levin says this to his brother, who is pushing him to get involved in setting up medical and education services for his peasants.
Tolstoy did not believe in modern medicine and had his own ideas on education. It may be that Levin is wrong, and that it is a good idea to have medical dispensaries for the public and compulsory education. Certainly politicians have pushed us further and further in that direction.
We are living longer and are better educated than before. I have benefited from both public education and the public health system, but then I pay a lot for them.
Education and health are seen today as rights, or entitlements, with no limits, and with no corresponding responsibility on the part of citizens to stay healthy and educate themselves. The government quasi-monopoly on these activities has spawned powerful professional groups that can threaten society with strikes and job actions since we are so dependent on them. Despite their vested interest in the existing quasi-monopoly, these representatives of the establishment in education and health like to present themselves as the only experts, the only ones with the moral authority to talk about these issues.
Levin's comment made me think. I looked up some statistics on the Internet.
In the average OECD country, governments spend over 5% of GDP on education and over 7% on health (and this is projected to double in some countries). Since government expenditures are about one third of GDP in most of these countries, it means that these two items combined amount to around 40% of government expenditures!
Japan and Korea have much lower than average expenditures and higher than average results in health and education. Expenditure does not equal results. How much of health and education outcomes are real y dependent on the actions of individual citizens? Should we not be expected to look after our own health and education more?
Library expenditures are around .1% of GDP whereas 'higher education' expenditures in Canada in 2003 were listed as 6.14% of GDP. It costs around $25,000 per year to keep someone in university in Canada. How effective is that? A motivated learner in social sciences (assuming such a thing exists) and humanities, including language and literature, could learn most of what he/she needs from libraries and the Internet. Should we not take responsibility for our own cultural development?
I attended, as an observer, a national conference on education where the directors of 40 school districts across Canada met with each other and with the suppliers of products and services to those school districts.
The subjects discussed were largely determined by the nature of the products and services that vendors wanted to talk about. Nevertheless it was possible for me to understand the major preoccupations of the most senior administrators of our national education system. I was impressed by the dedication, professionalism, and vision of these educational leaders.
I was struck, however, by the fact that foreign language training was not a part of the discussion. Directors of school boards were concerned about teachers getting older and retiring, about the cost of training and the need for better professional development models, the difficult choices in the introduction of new technology, (although they continued to spend over 90% of their budget on staff rather than other solutions). They talked eagerly about new 'buzz-words' of 'student engagement,' 'parental involvement,' 'student success,' rather than just teaching to the curriculum.
In terms of the subjects taught, basic literacy and numeracy were the main preoccupations.
In other words the focus was on getting more students to graduate through the system. They also were interested in teaching 'character' which I kind of gathered meant some ideological browbeating of the unsuspecting students around the prevailing slogans like multiculturalism, environmentalism, respect for diversity etc. Since teachers are now overwhelmingly women, I wonder how effective this al is with the boys, who are a bigger and bigger problem in schools.
I feel 'character teaching' belongs with the family and not with some teacher with a political agenda and should be based on the examples of the behaviour of adults and a few simple principles of respect for other individuals and responsibility for oneself. Anyway I digress.
What real y struck me was the lack of interest in language study. We live in a global vil age.
We can travel anywhere. We can access books, movies, television and radio in any language.
People who speak other languages are sharing our world and our lives with us. The benefits of being able to access these other cultures, the enrichment this brings to youngsters for their whole lives is so obvious to me, but it is not a concern of educators.
Modern technology may final y bring about a democratic revolution in education. I was reading a discussion on ESL the other day on another website. Some teachers were talking about al the 'interesting' things they had their students do. One teacher was asking students to read about the recent South Asian earthquake on the web.
