It is often difficult to read the tone of a forum posting and I am not sure, draurc, if your 9.41 posting on the 20th was facetious or disingenuous or something else altogether.  If people in general are genuinely as unaware as you seem to be about total immersion teaching methods then that is quite worrisome and the local authority ought to be explaining it in order to allay fears and clear up misconceptions although CNSA (the Gaelic playgroups association) has run information evenings in Sleat to explain the concept.  These evenings were highly enlightening.  I am neither a linguist nor a teacher but I have seen how total immersion teaching works in practice both for adults at SMO and for children at school.  Children entering P1 in any Gaelic total immersion school would have already had two years of Gaelic through Sgoil Araich and would therefore not have any trouble making themselves understood.  If a child is stuck for a word he or she can insert an English (or German or French etc) word then the teacher or other staff member nods his or her head in understanding and repeats what the child said all in Gaelic to positively reinforce the necessary language skills.  It is amazing how quickly this method works for adults and it’s quicker still for children.
Incidentally, as I am sure you know, local authorities and head teachers make policies as to how to run a school, not parent groups.

Fiddler – I was not being facetious nor in any way disingenuous – if my posting came over that way then sorry.

In my posting of the 19th June I said ‘Had there been a real open discussion about the idea, first, then my guess is that the supporters may have won over a number of doubters…’ – I stand by that and do believe that many of concerns that people currently have would have been allayed (or confirmed) by such a debate. Although as you will surmise my view on this issue and that of the WHFP do not coincide, I would commend their editorial of the 17th March 2006 which questions why the ‘…. army of professional language administrators…were not on the ground introducing, promoting and explaining the idea of Gaelic immersion schooling to sceptical and fearful parents in Sleat, long before those parents read about it in the press’.

As far as I aware there has been very little information for us on Sleat from HC on how such a school would actually be run. I would emphasise I am not talking about how GM education works in dual stream schools but how a GM only school would be run – would it be bilingual or essentially monolingual? Again, as far as I am aware there does not seem to have been any attempt by HC to clear up any misconceptions (if that is what they are) or allay fears by way of explanation - I wonder if HC in fact have any specific policies on how GM only schools are to be run or would this be largely in the discretion of the head teacher? If there are such policies that anyone knows of then I am sure they will not hesitate in directing me to them!

As I have said, the promoters of this proposal have repeatedly emphasised the detrimental effect on the GM children’s ability to achieve fluency, of English being spoken in the playground or at lunch time (indeed everywhere in school outwith the GM classrooms). I think it is therefore fair to ask whether, in a GM only school here on Sleat, English would be allowed in these environments or whether it would not. Fiddler, you indicate that the idea of English being banned in the playground is absurd – and I guess you are basing this on your experience on the Glasgow GM school (you must be as there is no other similar school in Scotland!). I am sure that school is a very happy and well run school as well as being successful – that much came across from the parent who spoke at the meeting at SMO some weeks ago.

What concerns me is how a GM only school here on Sleat would be run – and that is why I think it would be helpful to the debate if CNPS (who I do in fact realise will not be running the school but who did, after all, kick off this whole thing) could clarify what their vision is as I am fairly sure their views would be influential, though of course not directive, in such a school.

Referring to my posting of 6.46pm of the 20th June and to Maolag’s of 7.57pm - Prof. Johnstone’s report was ‘A Review of the International Research’ so when he says:-

‘Generally, L2 immersion classes are located in schools where the majority L1 is the mainstream language of education, giving parents the choice of placing their children in an ‘L2 immersion’ or an ‘L1 regular’ class.’

This means that, internationally, L2 immersion is mainly (but, I accept, not exclusively) delivered through dual stream schools.

Johnstone also says that L2 Immersion is ‘Characterised by its voluntariness’ and I would question whether this proposal does have that characteristic given the rural environment. Clearly the GM school in Glasgow does have that characteristic, given the urban environment and the number of schools available and no doubt that is a significant reason for it’s success.

The promoters of this proposal have frequently referred to this report and how it illustrates the success of L2 immersion around the globe – what they have failed to draw people’s attention to is the parts of the report I refer to above.

I think that’s quite enough for one posting!

draurc, I take my hat off to you for reading the Johnstone report - I have to admit I have not taken the time to read the report thoroughly myself (and couldn’t even spell his name correctly earlier!!).  I sense that a fair few of the “objectors” to this proposal are of the thinking that you suggest - that had there been a public consultation before the proposal had gone to the council, a lot more people would feel positive about it.  That said, it is sadly too late for that, and had Comann nam Pàrant had the foresight (a precious thing!) to pre-empt the need for such an exercise, I’m not sure that they would have had the necessary skills or experience required - after all they are a group of volunteer parents.  I agree with you and Fiddler99 that the HC are the body charged with promoting the benefits of total immersion schools.

I think Comann nam Pàrant looked at the falling figures of the EME side alongside with the HC policy to establish dedicated Gaelic schools where feasible, saw the opportunity this presented and considered it pertinent to write a letter to the council asking them to consider the proposal.  Just as you or I, or the WRI or the Bowling Club, might write to the council asking them to provide a pavement or a doctor’s surgery or a bus stop or affordable housing.  All these proposals would effect others in the community, some might agree with them and some might not.  But the individual or group would not feel the need to consult the community before writing their letter.

Would you agree, then, that, on the whole, the main problem people have with the proposal is that they feel they were not consulted in the first place?

I too agree with the WHFP editorial to which you refer, draurc.  It is absolutely true that there is a large number of language professionals (as well as civil servants and politicians who are signed up to many a policy that advocates expansion of Gaelic partly through the set up of dedicated Gaelic schools) that should have been leading this debate rather than letting parents take the burden. 
I’m sure you are well aware by now that the current set up is not a bilingual school.  The proposal is for a total immersion minority language school which would produce fully bilingual children.  English would not be “banned” and would not be punishable; it would be part of the curriculum as has been said many times before.  However, English would not be the dominant language outside the classroom.  All children would be able to speak Gaelic and would be very strongly encouraged to speak Gaelic.  The odd stray English word or phrase would actually be natural in such a situation as it is in “real life” but English would not be the main language that it is now.  As you say, that’s how, as far as I understand it, the Glasgow Gaelic school works.
I haven’t actually laid eyes on any policy for the running of dedicated Gaelic schools by Highland Council but since it does have one planned for Inverness I think it is highly likely (or am I being naive again?) that it is at least in the process of creating one.

draurc you may find the following useful - a link to the Learning Teaching Scotland website where you can download various Highland Council publications including the Gaelic Language Development Policy (which does not appear to be readily available via the council’s own website), special education needs policies and also a couple of handbooks published by Ayrshire Council.

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/gaidhlig/englishsummary/resourcesenglish.asp

Apologies if you have already accessed this information.

draurc, I’ve just read some of that 2002 Jonstone report that you quoted earlier.  It is different to the 1999 report most often quoted by those in favour of the proposal.  I believe that the section that you refer to in the 2002 report is discussing immersion in lanaguages such as French or Spanish and therefore not minority languages .  There’s big difference between the requirements for minority languages and the requirements for other languages and perhaps people discussing this (including myself) are not being clear enough about that important distinction.

draurc, I’ve just read some of that 2002 Jonstone report that you quoted earlier.  It is different to the 1999 report most often quoted by those in favour of the proposal.  I believe that the section that you refer to in the 2002 report is discussing immersion in lanaguages such as French or Spanish and therefore not minority languages .  There’s big difference between the requirements for minority languages and the requirements for other languages and perhaps people discussing this (including myself) are not being clear enough about that important distinction.

Maolag - I don’t for a moment suggest that CNPS ought to have lead the debate that should have happened (that would have been even more counterproductive to their cause), though they may, of course, have been the catalyst for such a debate. As we know there are numerous bodies out there which could and should have been involved and indeed lead the debate had it ever occurred ….but it didn’t and I suggest that is why we find ourselves in the mess that we are.

With respect it is not the fault of those who are against this proposal that we are where we are – if it came as a complete surprise to CNPS that we were not all on their side, well clouds and cuckoos spring to mind!

I also don’t think it is fair or right to equate the future of our children’s education with pavements or bus stops – this is really important for our children and to the future direction of Sleat. If I have a bus stop at my road end, that is, in the grand scheme of things, not very important – a change in the way our children our educated is on a different level altogether and the way it has been handled is, I believe, very wrong. Maybe I have misunderstood you Maolag.

As to falling EM figures – they have indeed fallen – I also understand that 3 families are moving away from the area this summer and that 7 GM pupils will be lost – I can’t do the percentages but I know that a loss of 7 pupils to either medium is significant and in percentage terms could produce some unpleasant reading. It may be that in a few months others move in - who knows and who knows which medium they will favour – assuming there is a choice? In a community as small as ours the movement of a few families in or out can have a huge impact on the figures so it is wrong to assume that GM is rising inexorably any more than the loss of a few GM pupils means that it is in terminal decline!

‘English would not be “banned” and would not be punishable;’ – I am sorry if I seem to be labouring this point but I really do think it is important. We need to know what those behind this proposal aspire to – if anyone who is against this proposal is to be persuaded otherwise then they will need to know just how such a school will work and how their children would be treated. I am not going to repeat what I have said previously, but whilst I am sure Fiddler that you believe what you say and indeed have the evidence of the Glasgow GM school to support you, I am still far from convinced that is what would happen here. You also say ‘The odd stray English word or phrase would actually be natural’ - now to me that indicates an all Gaelic environment with the odd English ‘accident’ being tolerated, though perhaps not too often. You say the children ‘..would be very strongly encouraged to speak Gaelic’ how do you anticipate that very strong encouragement would manifest itself and what would happen if a child ‘persistently’ spoke English outside the classroom? Maybe I am reading you wrongly Fiddler.

When I originally submitted this it was rejected because it was too long so the rest will follow!

this is the rest....

I asked in my previous (but one) posting whether the school would be bilingual or monolingual and Fiddler you have said ‘..that the current set up is not a bilingual school’ – until a few months ago along with, I suspect with most of Sleat, I had not heard the word ‘diglossic’ – I accept that the current school is diglossic or, as most would say, ‘dual stream’ – the criticism is that it is not truly bilingual – fair point – so I ask is the GM only school going to be bilingual or monolingual? If English will be spoken in roughly equal proportions to Gaelic then as far as I can see that would be a bilingual school but if one language dominates the other then to me that would largely be a monolingual school.

You also say, Fiddler, that since HC are building a GM school in Inverness they are probably working on a policy. In the meantime we in Sleat are being asked to sign up to a policy that may or may not be in the making and, if it is, we have no idea what it will say…… I’m sorry but I can’t go for that.

I’ve just read some of that 2002 Jonstone report that you quoted earlier.  It is different to the 1999 report most often quoted by those in favour of the proposal.  I believe that the section that you refer to in the 2002 report is discussing immersion in lanaguages such as French or Spanish and therefore not minority languages .

have I just figured out how you guys do this quoting bit??

As I have said I am no expert and maybe I have read the wrong report!

The 2002 report does say, however, in the same section as the earlier quotes that ‘In Scotland, children from Gaelic-speaking homes who receive Gaelic-medium primary education are on L1-maintenance, whereas children from English-speaking homes who receive Gaelic medium education do so on the basis of L2-immersion.’ – so on that basis I suggest that the earlier quotes with reference to L2 immersion are relevant to this debate.

It also has to borne in mind that those who promote the GM only school are saying not only are we helping save Gaelic but we are also, on the basis of all the international research, doing the right thing by our kids. My point is that the 2002 report confirms the benefits of L2 immersion education but where that is characterised by choice and also, in the main, that L2 immersion is delivered through dual stream schools – as we already have. The proposal will remove both the choice and the dual stream.

Thank you for the link Maolag, which I have visited – there does not seem to be much there on GM only schools – clearly in the strategic paper there is an aspiration for Gaelic and English to have equal status – however that is of little relevance to a school which would (as far as I can gather) aspire to an unequal status of the two languages.

I see from my previous posting that I obviously haven’t sussed out this quoting business! I am however new to this forum idea have never participated in one before!

draurc - 22 June 2006 05:10 PM

I see from my previous posting that I obviously haven’t sussed out this quoting business! I am however new to this forum idea have never participated in one before!

I think this is what you do - let’s see if it works.  Click the <<quote>> button and you are taken to a text box with all the text you want to quote.  Notice the text which appears in square brackets at the beginning and the end.  It’s important that the text you want to quote appears between these bracketed bits.  If you click <<preview post>> before you submit, you should see whether it works or not.

I appreciate that there does not appear to be a great deal of info on all Gaelic schools - perhaps the school would have access to such info?  Staff there have been openly discussing the potential change of status with parents for some years now - which is why I remain intreagued that the proposal came as such a huge surprise to some of our community.  Perhaps some people chose to close their ears to it?

draurc, what are your suggestions?  Do you think there is a need for further open debate?  Or do you feel (like I do) that a lot of people have made up their minds one way or the other and it will be almost impossible to change them?  What do you forsee being the outcome of the consultation?

Maolag says “I appreciate that there does not appear to be a great deal of info on all Gaelic schools - perhaps the school would have access to such info? “ (This quote thing is beyond me, I’m afraid!)
Does this help?
There isn’t much published info on all Gaelic schools, because there is only one in Scotland to date, and another on the way in Inverness.  However, there are hundreds of Welsh medium and Irish medium schools in the the UK (in Wales and in Northern Ireland).

Can I try to clarify the issue of L1 (i.e. ‘first language’) and L2 (’second, etc...’) streams and schools.  Teaching through the non-dominant language is extremely common around the world, and covers a huge variety of situations.  The situation of Welsh, Irish, etc. etc. is usually characterised as ‘language maintenance’.  There are no ‘units’ in Ireland (north or south) and I don’t think there are any in Wales. 
But immersion education can have other purposes too - e.g. English speaking parents sending their kids to French immersion in Canada, alongside kids who are L1 French speakers.  There are, just for example, Swedish immersion schools in Finland (mainly about language maintenance, as Swedish is a minority lang. in Finland) and there are English language immersion schools in Finland - not about language maintenance.  Sometimes it’s the reserve of the rich - private English immersion in Colombia, for example.  In all cases the aim is to produce fully bilingual children.  In most cases we are talking about dedicated schools, in both rural and city areas.  The ‘unit’, ‘stream’ or ‘class’ - whichever you prefer to call it - is not all that common, most typically occuring where the issue is one of giving children a good grounding in a second, non-local majority language. Outside Scotland it is very UNcommon where the issue is language maintenance.

Sorry, I haven’t a notion how these smileys got in - I didn’t choose them and can’t get rid of them!

In other words what gleann gruamach is driving at is that designating BSS as a dedicated Gaelic school would be to emulate the model of bilingualism in other parts of the world - i.e. to remove English as the dominant language (although lets emphasise not banning it) would provide the total immersion necessary for the children to become fluent in the weaker language (in this case Gaelic).  This is of no disrespect to the language of English, in which we are all fluent by default, but making Gaelic the language of the school is the only way to create the necessary fluency levels for true bilingualism.  So in answer to your question draurc, I guess the school would become in essence a single language school, but the community on the other hand would become a bilingual community.

The question of choice has popped up again.  The way I see it, there is no removal of choice, but on the contrary an additional choice is offered - total immersion in a second language, one which no child at BSS (and few in Scotland) is given currently.  Some people seem to take offence at analogies made comparing English and Gaelic to “a mink in a hen house” etc - but in fact the analogy is a good one.  The hens are weak, where the mink is dominant and can kill the hens with very little effort.  This is in no way meant to offend, but rather to show just how fragile a minority language is among a stronger language.  By removing the mink (or by building a safe environment round the hens), the hens survive, are protected and thrive.  Throw in a cockerel, and the population grows!  (now don’t read anything untoward into that please...)

I really don’t see how anyone could possibly argue that children will become less fluent in English by attending a Gaelic school.  Perhaps research has been done in other countries with single minority language schools?

maolag - 22 June 2006 06:41 PM

Staff there have been openly discussing the potential change of status with parents for some years now - which is why I remain intreagued that the proposal came as such a huge surprise to some of our community.  Perhaps some people chose to close their ears to it?

I am sorry but I take exception to the idea that I or anyone else have closed their ears to this - I have had children at the primary school for the past seven years and nobody has even mentioned this proposal to me in any shape or form. If this discussion has been going on it has not been universal (I guess it has been with a very few ‘like minded parents’ and if nothing else that is what has antagonised people. Interesting too that some parents with children in the GM also knew nothing about this - maybe they where not within the all important inner circle that appears to exist.

I am also amazed that staff who are, I understood, expected to be neutral on this issue as they are HC employees have been ‘openly’ discussing this for years! Pity none of the rest of us knew about it! Do you really think that there would have been such an outrage if everyone had known about this for ‘years’?