The Instigator
Rangesjk
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Volkov
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

French being taught in Canada is unnessicary if only taken untill grade 9

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,256 times Debate No: 8390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

Rangesjk

Pro

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this. This is my first debate and I would like to hear another persons point of view.

In Canda french has to be taught untill grade 9, then its optional if you want to continue. Learning a new language is great and I would love to do so but in high school (grade 9) it is treated rather as a class simply nessicary to pass to graduate.

The attitude french teachers and students have is disencouraging me to memorize numerous verb conjigations, spellings, and pronounciations. If i want to simply memorize I can do that in science class and learn about the world at the same time, or history and learn about great people.

Learning a language can be hard because memorizing is nesicary, you cant simply know like you do in other classes. To follow with this the teachers constantly remind you that its nessicary so then it seems like a pointless class because now we arent trieing to learn a language for the sake of learning a language. We are passing a course which is nessicary in Canada.

With this negative prespective on the class I find it hard to spend countless hours memorizing things I will forget in a week, let alone for the rest of my life like in Math for example.

My marks are very high, except in french which is 58%.
So to sum it off

1) Its not treated as a way to learn a language, its treated like a compulsary course which has a forgotten purpose.(i can simply memorize numbers instead of letters and I will achive the same results from the experience in most units)

2)Most of the marks are dirived from memorizing verbs which are forgotten in a week, and forgotten about after you graduate!

3)In stead of this course students can spend time on subjects that teach a good leason.

Remember that this debate is only counting students who learn until grade 9 and no further.
Learning a language can be extremly benificial and if continued can increase your chances of getting a job greatly, but if you only take it until grade 9 it wont matter.

Thanks I await a response :)
Volkov

Con

I thank my opponent for this very, very interesting debate. I would like to begin by just outlining the standard curriculum of Ontario schools regarding French being taught up until Grade 9.

There is several types of French courses in the Ontario curriculum, ranging from French Immersion courses (which requires that all instruction be taught in French at least 50% of the time and a total of 3600 hours of French language instruction, from Grade 1 to Grade 8)[1], to Extended French programs (which requires that instruction must be in French at least 25% of the time and must accumulate 1260 hours of French Language instruction from Grade 4 to Grade 8)[1], to what I believe my opponent is talking about, which is the Core French classes in English-language public schools, which requires that students must complete at least 600 hours of French language instruction between Grade 4 and Grade 8 [2].

In secondary schools, Core French is a required compulsary credit, but for only one grade [3]; but it can be taken in any other grade, depending on circumstances. For the sake of this debate though, we shall say that it is compulsary in Grade 9.

The basic aim of the Core French program is to ".... develop basic communication skills in French and an understanding of the nature of the language, as well as an appreciation of French culture in Canada and in other parts of the world."[2] The Core French program has four main "strands" of the program, which are as follows:

Oral Communication
Reading
Writing [4]

All programs are designed to immerse students into the French language, and help teach students the basics of how it works. As an example of how rigourous this process is, students by the end of Grade 4 - the starting grade for Core French in normal circumstances - are expected to "... understand basic classroom instructions; be able to respond briefly to oral texts; read aloud familiar material, using proper pronounciation and intonation; use all available cues (eg. visual cues, knowledge of basic sounds, and context) to determine meaning."[5] There is much more than I showed, but I am using it as an example that right from the start of the Core French program, this is an immense learning process.

Now, I wish to address my opponent's contentions, one by one.

1) "Its not treated as a way to learn a language, its treated like a compulsary course which has a forgotten purpose."

My opponent says that it is treated more as a compulsary course than a way to learn a language, but I wish to point out that this is a subjective opinion. The curriculum I have cited is clear in its desire to teach French as a second language, beginning in Grade 4 and finishing as compulsary in Grade 9. In the minds of the Ministry of Education and those who have written up the curriculum for Ontario students, this course is not merely 'compulsary'; it is a tool to help develop a student's knowledge of another language (something that is quite valuable in today's multi-lingual society), as well giving them vital exposure the culture of French Canadians (Quebecois, Acadians, etc.) and that of other French cultures around the world[6]. There is not a 'forgotten' purpose to the Core French programs.

My opponent should also know that Canada has a huge portion of its population that speaks French, also not just limited to Quebec [7], or is of French descent [8]. Canada is also an officially bilingual nation [9], and while not all jobs require you to be able to speak French, many successful positions depend on your ability to speak in both official languages, especially in government services.

Once again, there is no 'forgotten' purpose to the Core French programs. Compulsary Core French classes are designed to give students the basics of the French language as well as French culture, so as to promote a sense of multiculturalism in Canada, as well as to prepare students for the work force. This is much more than a compulsary course, it is a key to furthering your life.

2) "Most of the marks are dirived from memorizing verbs which are forgotten in a week, and forgotten about after you graduate!"

My opponent claims here that the marks in Core French classes are derived from memorizing verbs, which is simply not true. Here are just some of the things expected by Grade 9 students in order to complete Core French classes;

– prepare and conduct a survey to gather information, and summarize the data in short sentences.
– revise, edit, and proofread their writing, focusing on grammar, spelling, punctuation, and conventions of style;
– read aloud, with expression, changing intonation to reflect declarative, interrogative, and exclamatory sentences (e.g., Il fait tr�s froid aujourd'hui. Comment vas-tu? Quelle r�ponse!);
– identify synonyms and antonyms of given words in written texts;
– speak in French when working in collaborative and exploratory activities; [10]

Et cetera, et cetera. It is clearly based on more than just 'memorizing verbs'.

The second part of my opponents contention here is that you will most likely forget these lessons after you have graduated. I disagree though, because from my own experience, while I may have forgotten most of my French and cannot speak it fluently, I do remember the basics of what I have been taught. Because the human brain is a brilliant thing, if we see or hear familiar sounds we will remember what goes with that, ie. if we hear or read French, our memory will be able to bring up what we have been taught, and we should at least remember the basics of the language. I quote;

"Enhanced serial recall for linguistically familiar material is usually attributed to a process of item redintegration. The possibility tested here is that familiarity influences memory at the sequence level by enhancing the fluency with which items may be assembled into sequences."[11]

This is not only helpful in the event you find yourself in Montreal somehow, but also if you ever wish to learn French again. Instead of having to go through all the steps again, you will be able to start off at a much more advanced level of French than "Le Guide d'Idiot en Francais". This is an especially helpful fact in the Canadian workforce, which needs increasing amounts of bilingual employees.

3) "In stead of this course students can spend time on subjects that teach a good leason."

As I believe I have proven in my other two arguments, Core French classes are an important part of our curriculum. But, because this is my opponent's first debate, I will not elaborate further on this, and instead ask him to present examples of subjects which students require more time on subjects that shall teach them a 'better lesson' than Core French classes will.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments, and I again thank him for this very interesting debate.

Sources:
1. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca...
2. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca...
3. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... - Page 5
4. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... - Page 8; Strands in the Core French Curriculum
5. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... - Page 12; Grade 4: Oral Communication, Reading, and Writing
6. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... - Page 2; The Aim of the Core French Program
7. http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca...
8. http://www40.statcan.gc.ca...
9. http://laws.justice.gc.ca...
10. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... - Pages 7 to 10; Core French, Grade 9, Academic
11. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Rangesjk

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate, you helped learn a valuable lesson from this debate ,think alot about the topic.

This is because I should of made the topic something along the lines of the course should not be nessicary to graduate highschool.

The purpose of this course as stated by my opponenet is ( please correct me if I forget anything )

1) "-, this course is not merely 'compulsary'; it is a tool to help develop a student's knowledge of another language"
No argument.

2)"-as well giving them vital exposure the culture of French Canadians (Quebecois, Acadians, etc.) and that of other French cultures around the world-"

I almost completed the course and there is only one unit that lasted 5 days that teaches anythign about the French Candian culture. Mostly what I learned thier food and that there is an eiffel tower, im sure I will learn about this again in history. There are numerous small things like these in every subject.

3) "-, and while not all jobs require you to be able to speak French, many successful positions depend on your ability to speak in both official languages, especially in government services. "

You mentioned that this course helps you if you want succesful position, espoecialy in government sevices. Im not sure but If completed only until grade nine it wont help you get a succesful position because you cant put this on your resumee since you cant really use the skills you learned effectivly on the job.

4)You mentioned what just some of the things that marks are derived from are.

There are about 4 assignments wieghting as much as one unit each test along with an oral exam (some pronounciations are random and you must simply know ex. "ain�" which is pronouced aen") and a couple group assignemt.

All these together won't get you the credit because there are 6 units or so with 3 test in each one and a unit test. So if you fail this you fail the course.

The exam is said to be on all the units and the only way to study is to memorize pronounciations and conjugations, if you fail this at a 70% which you can get from other things but you fail the course.

"– identify synonyms and antonyms of given words in written texts" you have to memorize the definition of the words given and thier antonyms. Ex from my recent test "se dispute" is a synonym for "se bat" which you have to just know.

5) You say this course will help you if you find yourself in Montreal somehow and if you wish to learn french again,

Most likley if you go to Montreal you will go to a famous attraction like a museam. Most areas where tourist visit are filled with english - french speaking people and signs in both languages so thier tourist population isn't limited to people who speak french or took this course. Last year I went to montreal to see a museam and I saw no chance to use what I learned :[

As for taking french again I agree this will help but if you didn't continue it in grade 10 chances are you aren't interested in learning french.

The reason I said this course has a forgotten purpose is because although the course is designed to teach the language and about the french people, in class most teachers barly include those things and constantly emphasise the fast that this is nessicary to graduate and the each lesson must be memorize to pass the exam.
40% of this semister's class is failing.

Il eagerly wait for my opponent's argument. Merci :)
Volkov

Con

I thank my opponent for his swift response, and apologize for my tardy one.

My opponent says that while doing the course, there has so far only been one unit that lasted 5 days that teaches about Quebecois culture.

While this may be true for his own Grade 9 course, it is clear that from Grade 4 to Grade 9, every Core French course has some historical and cultural courses added into it. So while my opponent's Grade may only have five days of history/cultural lessons, those lessons also occur in other grades. Going on the assumption that all grades have a five-day minimum course of history/cultural lessons, that course would stretch twenty-five days long - nearly a month. This is important to note that because this course does not have an emphasis on those lessons, this is a fairly long time to be on those specific lessons. This again, is only if five days are the minimum - the curriculum can allow for many more days.
As well, history classes by themselves cover a wide swath of Canada's and the world's history - but in no means is it specific to certain cultures. Core French culture lessons are specific to Quebecois and French cultures, allowing for greater understanding of the language and culture in general.
This shows that the history lessons in the Core French course do make an impact and do have a purpose in this course, making it necessary.

My opponent doesn't understand that you do not need a certificate per se to prove your bilingualism. What is required is that you are able to show you can understand and speak a basic level of French with your employer, and you therefore have proven you are bilingual.

For jobs that require advanced French, you may have to show a certificate of proof, or possibly write out your resume in French and conduct the interview in French; but for other jobs that do not require an advanced level of French, no certificate is required.

As I stated above, the Core French course up to Grade 9 gives you those basics and allows you to have a wider range of job opportunities as compared to a unilingual person. If you have forgotten some of your French since Grade 9, you can simply brush up with the Dummie's Guide to Intermediate French - I say "intermediate" because instead of having to learn it from scratch, you are able to pick up generally from where you left off. So it is clear that Core French can be put towards skills that can be used effectively on the job.

My opponent then discusses some of his marks with us, but I do not see why I should address this. My opponent has clearly stated that you need to complete many tests and gain a certain score to be able to pass.
You must learn how to identify verbs, adjectives, nouns, synonyms, antonyms and etc., be able to competently speak French in a oral exam, and must complete many hours of written work. It is clear that the marking is derived from more than just memorizing verbs. None of what my opponent has said goes against my own argument, so I shall let it stand.

My opponent then talks about his experience in Montreal, which is mostly bilingual city. I would like to note that I only used Montreal as an example of a French city.

In the spirit of his argument though, I will address his contention. In Montreal, you can visit and live in the city without speaking competent French - but it is almost impossible to get a even the most lowly job without the knowledge of basic French. Clearly, Core French has its benefits in situations like these.

"As for taking french again I agree this will help but if you didn't continue it in grade 10 chances are you aren't interested in learning french."

I would like to note that it is not whether or not you *want* to learn French after Grade 9, it is whether or not you need to.

Now my opponent brings up a good point with his last argument. Teachers in these classes often do not teach it how the curriculum was meant to be taught. They emphasize the fact that you need it to pass and wish to get through lessons as quick as humanly possible. But, this is not the fault of the curriculum; it is clear what the curriculum states and to what ends it wishes to achieve. This argument is not over the actions of the teachers, however lackluster they may be. It is about the fact that Core French studies are unnecessary - a resolution that I have negated with several arguments.

I await for my opponent's conclusion to this argument, and I challenge him to write out his next argument in French! Though, it isn't completely necessary. :)
Debate Round No. 2
Rangesjk

Pro

Rangesjk forfeited this round.
Volkov

Con

That wasn't in French.

Anyways, I think I've proven effectively why Core French is necessary in the school curriculum here. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - Pro forfeited.
S/G: Con
Arguments: Con - Con easily proved the need for Core French (even if Pro doesn't like taking it), and demonstrated the benefits that come from immersion in such a curriculum.
Sources: Con - Clearly.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
C: CON, due to a forfeit by PRO.
S&G: CON. PRO's arguments were peppered with spelling and grammatical errors.
A: CON, due to forfeit. Otherwise, I feel that the debate may have been interesting.
S: CON for obvious reasons.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Defaulted CON due to forfeits.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by comoncents 8 years ago
comoncents
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 8 years ago
alwaz4dam
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by brycef 8 years ago
brycef
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
RangesjkVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07