Sibling rivalry over the merits of French Immersion

My brother is a high school teacher in Guelph, he also writes opinion pieces on occasion for ther Guelph Mercury newspaper. He just offered his thoughts on whether or not to enrol a child in French immersion, something I blogged on a while back. His conclusions are differently different from my own, so in a bit of cyber sibling rivalry I thought I'd take him to task.

You can view his column HERE.

Summarizing his main points:

-4 years old is too young to determine if a child has the requisite language skills and intelligence.

-The quality of teachers in the available hiring pool for FI is too small compared to the English stream. Thus regular streamed students will get better teachers, and teachers are the most important factor in a student's academic success or failure.

-Having children attending a school out of their immediate (walking distance) area.

-That there's more diversity in the regular stream than in French Immersion.

Well Greg, I don't think you could be more wrong.

I for one think that most parents will have a decent grasp on their children's' capacity for learning at the age of four. I do not think French Immersion is for every child, far from it. But for parents who find their child very eager to learn new things, I believe its a wise choice. Children who enjoy reading and word play games are going to be more challenged and more engaged in a French Immersion environment.

Now, the quality of teachers....ugh. Greg, you have to be kidding me.

Everyone knows there are dullards in the regular stream. Thankfully there are many excellent teachers too, and its exactly the same in French Immersion. I've found the teachers at my children's school to be excellent! Perfect? No, but in my humble opinion Buddy and Raspberry's teachers stack up amazingly well against any school's staff in the province of Ontario.

And as for teachers being the most important factor in determining a child's academic success or failure, BUNK. Its the parents! Studies have shown that children whose parents went on to post secondary education are more likely to move on themselves. Motivated students excel regardless of whether their teacher is Mr. Holland or a 20 year veteran just hanging on so he can max out his pension.

I'm not suggesting there are not some amazing teachers out there in the regular stream, ones capable of taking a socially and economically at risk kid and helping him or her achieve great academic success. I'm talking about the norm.

And more diversity in the regular stream??? Puhlease. Again, from experience...your niece and nephew's school is incredibly diverse. White, Black, Asian, Arab, Muslims, Christians, Jews...it runs the gamut. How diverse a child's school is will be largely dependent on the diversity within the school's enrolment area. Why? Because recent immigrants are often very concerned about giving their children every conceivable advantage in our hyper competitive society.

I made the point in my original blog on this topic, that parents who put their kids in FI are likely far more engaged in their child's education than kids in the regular stream. That's not to say kids in the regular stream have parents who are out to lunch. But as an educator I'm sure you're aware of lots of parents who really don't give a rip. I'm suggesting that on balance parents who enrol their kids in FI are more likely to be involved in their child's education.

The only point you make that has merit Greg is that of geography. If your kids can come home for lunch, and the local school doesn't offer FI, then I can see the validity of that point. It comes down to values and I wouldn't diminish any one's desire to sit down with their kids at lunchtime.

French Immersion is a wonderful program, but granted its not one for everyone. Paramount is that the child must enjoy it, if they're struggling and not enjoying school...then I would whole heartily agree that a move to the regular stream is in order.

We live in a world where everyone wants a "One Size Fits All" solution to complicated questions and issues. Real life isn't like that. I respect your decision to not put your kids in FI, that is a parent's prerogative.

But to flippantly dismiss the value of the entire FI system is in my view somewhat irresponsible.

$3 million later Feds might have plan to discourage smoking. Bigger warning labels

No wonder Stephen Harper is having difficulty keeping his fiscally conservative supporters happy, stories like this just keep cropping up.

In this Canadian Press wire story its reported that the Feds have spent over $3 million dollars with an eye to requiring cigarette packages to have bigger and more explicit warning labels, or maybe not. It seems the decision is still pending, with the Health Minister denying claims that the labels have been shelved.

$3 million!!! And they really think warning labels will convince smokers like me to quit??? Time for Stephen Harper's government to take $1 million out of petty cash and buy a clue. Warning labels do nothing. Reading stories like this has me wondering what Stephen and his merry band are smoking themselves, and I don't think its cigarettes.

News flash guys, smokers...we know smoking is bad. You can print all the warning labels you want, its not going to work. In the same article it talks about using social media like Twitter and Facebook to discourage smoking. How much is that gonna cost?

Everyone who smokes has heard how bad it is, got it. There might be a Saskatchewan wheat farmer who's been glued to his tractor for the last 40 years who hasn't heard, but I'm betting he doesn't use Twitter.

You can tweet and poke all you like guys, and spend countless millions more. I guess the government isn't really worried about the record setting deficit it just racked up, its business as usual in Ottawa.

Why won't Canadians trust Harper with a majority?

The latest poll numbers are in, and once again Harper's Conservatives are tantalizingly close to that elusive majority. Looking at the Canadian political landscape from a Tory perspective, its hard to believe that Harper has thus far been unable to crack that elusive 40 per cent barrier. One that would put his party solidly into majority territory.

Back when Jean Chrétien was romping to back to back to back majority governments, the right wing vote was split between just two parties: Reform and Progressive Conservative. Ever since the merger of those two aforementioned parties, the left has splintered into three different camps in English speaking Canada. With the Liberals having to battle with the NDP and nascent Greens for support among the majority of Canadians who typically vote left of centre.

So why won't just 4 out of 10 Canadian voters support Stephen Harper and his Conservative party?

I think there are a number of reasons.

While our collective attention span may be short, it is not totally bereft of the ability to recall Mr. Harper in his former role with the National Citizens Coalition (NCC). Many are aware that the NCC was formed to battle against the attempt to bring in state run Health Care in this country back in the sixties. And Harper's future political aspirations were not helped with his speech to a Neo-Conservative think tank called 'The Council for National Policy" in Montreal back when he was Vice President of the NCC.

For many in the Anti-Harper camp, THAT SPEECH is used as a sign post when talking about 'The Real Stephen Harper' and the so called secret agenda. In it were many quotes which will be familiar to keen political observers. Among them was this little bromide about the former Progressive Conservative Party:

They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.

Of course that speech is now over 10 years old, so I don't think it represents a primary reason why Canadians haven't seen fit to reward Harper with majority rule.

Other reasons likely have to do with his numerous broken promises, among them to protect the nest eggs of retirees by leaving Income Trusts tax exempt. Then there was his promise not to stack the senate, before becoming the all time patronage king by obliterating the single day record for appointments to the red chamber.

And of course there's the economy. When the last election was on, and the US economy was first showing signs of going into a severe recession, our economist PM was forecasting balanced budgets and continued growth. Even after being elected to yet another minority, the government's first budget of the new session didn't even acknowledge the threat of a weakening economy. Only under threat of being voted out of power in the house did the PM and his party agree to stimulus measures.

A majority may yet come to pass for Harper. The Conservative machine seems to be constantly searching for any wedge that will push them into that magic 39-40% area code. Many pundits see them working hard to convince the suburban voter to support them on law and order issues while shoring up their rural base over issues like the long gun registry.

The Liberals are listing under Michael Ignatieff's leadership, the NDP seems incapable of broadening their appeal into the mainstream, and the Greens look like they've fallen off the map. With the board stacked heavily in Harper's favour yet again, it likely will come down to a matter of trust in my opinion.

Will just four out of every ten Canadian voters trust Harper when the next election rolls around?

Is eleven too young for a cell phone?

Ah Christmas, when children across this country will be badgering Santa Claus and their parents for all manner of gifts. The eleven year old referenced in the title to this blog entry is my son who will actually be twelve in another couple of months. Like many kids his age he wants a cellular phone, its not something he needs, but then all his needs are well looked after and Christmas for kids does tend to be about wants.

Back when I was his age, the Christmas when I too was 11, the gift I wanted above all else was Matel Electronic Football. Having asked for it my parents told me it wasn't going to happen, my father was leaving his position and we were going to be moving from Portland Oregon back to the Toronto area. In short money was tight and the game was too expensive.

On Christmas morning after all the presents had been opened my Mom asked the same question she asked every year. "Was this the best Christmas ever"? Although my most cherished gift had not been under the tree I, along with my brother and sister, responded in the affirmative. Then my Dad noticed one last small package way back under the tree against the wall and asked my sister to retrieve it. "Its for Gordon", she said handing me the gift. Thinking it was socks or underwear or something equally useful and unexciting I unwrapped it. You guessed it, it was the game I'd be dreaming about owning for months. I jumped around like a kangaroo on bennies.

That's part of the reason I'm thinking of giving in and getting my son a cell, but its not the only reason.

I recently read an article about how this digital age we're living in is 'rewiring' our brains. Children growing up now are apparently capable of extreme laser like focus, but only in very short bursts. Being able to compete and thrive in our brave new world means being able to adapt easily to new technologies and to assimilate tons of information in a short period of time.

If I do go ahead and get him one it will be with certain restrictions. I will only get him one provided I am able to limit the phone numbers he is able to dial. There would be no long distance permitted, but I would allow him to text. I'm fairly certain that my cell provider (Rogers) will be able to meet those demands, but I'm not 100% sure I'm going to give in just yet.

Am I spoiling him? Kids do tend to get spoiled at Christmas regardless, its really just a matter of degree and perception I think.

On a final practical note, it would be nice to know that no matter the circumstance or situation buddy would be able to call me or his mother.

Any thoughts from parents who've been hit with similar requests?