"Some kids are not cut out for immersion..." or "My kid just doesn't like the French language"

I would like to put it out there that this myth needs serious busting. But who has the resources to do it? How would you design a longitudinal education study that would properly do this?

One of the biggest problems is having a proper control group. You simply can't.

Anecdotally, I would say that the biggest problem for kids not being able to stay in a language immersion program is that they don't have parents who are willing to meet their own kids' needs. That is more the problem than that "some kids" are not cut out for this.

But sure, most language immersion programs do not have the full slate of resources to meet each and every need or desire that the kid has. For example, it would be very progressive and cutting edge if a school was designed to have all of the following:

1. very high academic targets across all subjects (assuming elite college prep here, too),
2. a high proficiency outcomes Mandarin language program,
3. a high achieving soccer program with coaches who taught in Mandarin and English.

Soccer and Mandarin? A total fantasy come true for some dads out there. But first, pull back and notice that the Academics + Soccer model, itself, in English, is not terribly common here in America.

So when parents complain that their program is missing things, it is often an unrealistic slate. And when they say someone's kids or their own just aren't "cut out for language immersion," I think that it is because they, the parents, do not want to invest in the resources to help their kids achieve and succeed on the language front.

Why don't parents want to do this? Your guess is as good as mine. I think some don't really understand what it takes to "get there" in an English-dominant society when they simply lack the bilingual experience, themselves. I think others are too enamored of social status activities that keep them from focusing on something like language proficiency. For example, I see a lot of parents work really hard to support their kids for soccer, skiing, gymnastics, and piano. But they will not work as hard for the second language. Then they sit around and wonder why their kid doesn't have better proficiency outcomes for their language skills. Furthermore, if you challenge them on why they are investing so much time and energy on these other activities, usually without the expectation that their kids will reach professional levels, they say things like "it's good for them" in very general and vague ways.

I don't disagree that investing in anything is "good for" any kid. But that is the point. If you invest, then you will see outcomes. If you don't, then why do you expect better outcomes for not having invested, when you are clearly more invested in all these other things? Just admit you are not invested in the language outcomes and you would rather your child turn out to be a professional skier. (Even if global warming is negatively impacting the entire industry...)

And others, still - I think there are still too many people who think that their kids will do "just fine" if they "pick up" the language at a later point in their education. But all these perspectives goes back to a very shallow understanding of the 3B's.

Then there is a fringe minority out there who don't understand that being part of a low-performing language immersion program is not the goal at all. So when parents opt out of such a program, it has nothing to do with the characteristic of the program having such a strong language component, but that the targets are too low to constitute a "real" or "normal" or even "good" education. That is an entirely different thing. But I have heard parents out there use this as an excuse - that language immersion is not for everyone - therefore, no need to look at attrition rates as an indication that you might be in a low-performing program. These parents point the finger at those who leave, suggesting that the kids and parents who leave such a program are, themselves, deficient in talent and inclinations, while those who remain in such a program keep ignorantly strutting around in their chicken suits.

I believe that all kids are able to learn a second language through a good immersion program. But the kids need the right supports for their own learning styles, patterns, and mix of strengths and weaknesses. There is no one program that can meet all the needs of every learner out there. That is where parents need to figure out what their own kids need and be their kids' best advocates and sources of support. I think this is generally true for other types of learning, not just language.

But language is different - it is the vehicle of thought, not just thought, itself. It is one thing for someone to express a preference for a subject like math or science, or history or literature. But it's another thing to say, "Oh, my kid just doesn't like the French language." What does that even mean?

Imagine a French person saying that. Then, what? What would that child do? Not speak French? And therefore, not speak or write or think? Would that parent be okay with allowing their kid to halt all language faculties altogether simply because the kid had decided that s/he didn't like the French language?

Of course, this is a total absurdity. But these are the kinds of things I hear parents in Mandarin Immersion programs say. Or, some who perhaps aspire to be in them are saying such nonsense.

The bottom line is that every kid can do a language immersion program. But not all programs are good fits for every kid, nor are all programs even good at what they say they are supposed to do for the kids who would be good fits for their model. Then it is up to the grownups - no the kids - to figure out how to make the program good. And if the program can only be adjusted to meet the needs of the middle of the group, then the parents must do the extra that their own kids need.