french immersion: bilingual education and unilingual administration

French Immersion." Bilingual Education and Unilingual Administration

ADEL SAFTY University of British Columbia

ABSTRACt. By virtue of their organization, growth, and continued success, French immersion programs represent more than a second-language learning methodology; they are and ought to be recognized as programs of bilingual education. This means that their effectiveness ought to be measured by generally accepted criteria of educational effectiveness. These include, among other things, the degree of staff integration in the school culture and the quality of leadership provided by the school principal. But the majority of schools offering bilingual education programs are administered by unilingual or by "theoretically" bilingual administrators; this can deprive the French component of much needed leadership and create situations in which the level of ambiguity is high and the possibility of integration into the school culture is low. An effort to gradually ensure that bilingual education benefits from bilingual administration would be a step in the direction of recognizing the maturity of French immersion.

KEVWORDS. French immersion, administration, bilingual, unilingual, school, culture, Principal, leadership, evaluation

A quarter of a century after the first successful experimental program of bilingual education was launched in Montreal, French immersion is rapidly becoming an integral part of the Canadian educational system. There are now close to 1,700 elementary and secondary schools offering French Immersion programs in which over 224,000 students are receiving their instruction in the two official languages of this country. There are four principal reasons which account for this remarkable success:

1) the changing attitudes towards the learning of a second language prompted by the waning of isolationist tendencies and increased cultural contacts with the rest of the world; related to this reason is the dissatisfaction with the mediocre results achieved by traditional second language learning methodologies;

2) the growing acceptance of the bilingual character of a Canadian national

Interchange, Vol. 23/4, 389-405, 1992. �9 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

390 SAFTY

identity operating in a multicultural setting;

3) the positive empirical research and evaluation studies' findings about the academic and linguistic benefits of bilingualism generally and about French immersion educational achievements in particular; and

4) the growing perception among Canadians of the role of bilingual competencies as an instrument of socio-economic mobility in an officially bilingual country. (Safty, 1988)

French Immersion as Bilingual Education

French immersion has been called "the most Successful program ever recorded in the professional language-teaching literature" (Krashen, 1984, p. 61), and its success was judged as representing "a quiet language revolution" (Stern, 1984). While few would dispute these assertions, I suggest that by virtue of its continued growth, its increasing popularity, and its organization as a program offering, beginning at the intermediate level, instruction that is roughly equally divided between the two official languages of this country, French immersion ought to be viewed within a new context. It ought to be considered not only as a successful second language-teaching methodology but also as a complete educational program that has been boldly and successfully offering itself as an alternative to traditional educational programs. We need therefore to look at it not as a French program but as an educational program in which French is also effectively learned. We need to recognize the far-reaching implications of the expansion of a program that a growing number of people are choosing instead of rather than in addition to the traditional unilingual program. Moreover, the way French immersion is organized is such that the program, full French immersion at the primary level, Iransforms itself, at the intermediate level, to become a program of bilingual education.

The term "bilingual education" is, in my view, more appropriately descriptive of the pedagogical content, organizational structures, and educational out- comes of the program than the term "French immersion." Whereas French immersion is more neutrally descriptive of a second language learning methodology, bilingual education is richer in political implications and significant symbols, and better encapsulates the four reasons mentioned above for its growing popularity. The term "bilingual" identifies the program closely with Canada's official policy of bilingualism and its symbols of national identity. The term "education" conjures up questions of rights, equal opportunity, and accountabil- ity.

Many school boards still have some reservations about French immersion and are unlikely to accord it the status associated with the term bilingual education. A Canadian Education Association study (1983) identified a number of difficulties attendant with the establishment and functioning of a French immersion program. These included reluctance of school hoards to meet the demand for French immersion, indifference, resentment of regular program teachers and

FRENCH IMMERSION: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE 391

school and district administrators towards the program, and scarcity of both qualified teachers and suitable instructional materials. Similar difficulties are also likely to delay the acceptance of the French immersion's maturation into bilingual education.

Still, redefining French immersion as bilingual education frees inquiry from the traditional preoccupation with linguistic achievement which has prevented our probing the other variables that have an impact on schools and teaching effectiveness. These variables come out of a body of educational research findings which associate instructional effectiveness, leadership effectiveness, and level of school integration with the concept of educational excellence. While these issues need to become part of the debate about French immersion, I wish to focus here on the question of administration, which is of clear relevance to the effectiveness of any educational program.

School Administration: Power, Authority, and School Conflict

Knezevich (1975) defines administration as "a social process concerned with identifying, maintaining, stimulating, controlling, and unifying formally and informally organized human and material energies within an integrated system designed to accomplish predetermined objectives" (p. 12). The primary responsibility of the school administrator is to harness the available human and material energies in order to fulfil a set of educational goals. The school system provides the administrator with the challenge of leading a group of people (human administration), organizing instructional activities (curriculum administration), and making effective use of material resources (support services administration).

The system approach in organizational theory has made useful contributions to our understanding and analysis of school administration. The school system, like any other human organization, is viewed as an institution with a sense of purpose. Ideally, it will seek to achieve its goal of delivering educational services while at the same time creating opportunities for its people to develop a sense of ownership and to derive satisfaction from the work they perform, which in turn should enhance their commitment to the job. People are the basic element in any system and their behaviour influences the effectiveness with which any organization accomplishes its goals. We know from the application of the system theory to educational organizations that: a) a school system is a human organization within which a social service is performed. School administration is therefore a social process that takes place within the context of a social system; and b) individuals in the organization bring to their work certain needs that they seek to satisfy. When the needs of the individuals and the demands of the organization are not compatible, and quite often they are not, problems arise. These problems have a significant impact both on the organization and on the individual.

One of the most significant determinants of the nature of the relationship between the needs of the individuals and those of the organization is what the

392 SAFrY

literature on organization effectiveness and school improvement calls "the school culture." The term "culture" refers to the institutional customs, procedures, and values that a school administration develops and emphasizes. An administration that gives primacy to organizational procedures and system rules over the need to motivate people and develop in them a sense of ownership and commitment will necessarily have a culture different from that created by a school administration which chooses to place a clear emphasis on teachers' professional and emotional needs. There is thus a link between a school culture, its tone, ideals, norms, expectations, and ethos and the behaviour of the school as an organization. This link determines the nature of the relationship between organizational needs and human needs and significantly affects the school's socio- political climate - - that is, the nature and frequency of interactions between individual members and the environment in which these interactions take place - - and inevitably colours the relationship between administrators and teachers.

One of the most critical determinants of the nature of a given school culture has to do with the sources of power on which the administration bases its authority. Max Weber distinguished three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal. Traditional authority is legitimized by the belief in the sanctity of tradition. Charismatic authority is based on the fascination with what seems to be the supernatural power of certain individuals. Legal authority is legitimized by the formalistic belief in the supremacy of norms and laws. Legal authority forms the basis of the typical bureaucratic organization, and since school organizations are essentially bureaucratic organizations, authority in the school system is generally regulated by norms, codes, procedures, and rules. Power and authority are not necessarily synonymous and it is useful to keep in mind that a distinction is generally made between them. Authority is the prerogative to act or require others to act by virtue of rights invested in a hierarchical position. Power, on the other hand, is generally defined as the ability to influence decisions and the decision-making process. Power may have as a source a position of authority, but it may also come from a variety of other sources. A principal may have authority but may not necessarily have power in the sense that he or she may be empowered to make decisions but lacks the leadership or knowledge that will give these decisions independent power outside of the hierarchical authority behind them. Conversely, a teacher may have power but may not be in a position of authority, may lack the hierarchical authority to bring about the implementation of his or her decisions. Similarly, because of expertise or personality or leadership quality, a teacher may have more influence than the principal on decision making on a variety of issues that affect the school. A school culture in which authority is Iegitimized by bureaucratic power will have a different ethos from a culture in which power has a more widely diffused basis. The culture of a given school is largely determined by what emerges from the confrontation between these two conceptions.

As complex bureaucratic organizations, schools contain bureaucratic and professional characteristics. The professional characteristics are those that skilled or trained professionals bring to the job and which are reflected in the


expertise required for the fulfilment of their duties. Professionals tend to derive pride and satisfaction from their capital of knowledge, which is their tool of trade. Their power lies in their knowledge.

The bureaucratic characteristics of schools are those that are related to procedures, policies, rules, codes, and expectations of conformity which the school, like any other bureaucratic organization, uses to achieve its goals - - which are usually framed in terms of general weU-being and collective benefits. Bureau- crats tend to derive their satisfaction from the enforcement of rules and procedures and from the power that such prerogative of reinforcement confers upon them. Whatever power a school principal has is derived from the authority invested in the position and from whatever professional skills and knowledge he or she has.

What values a specific school emphasizes, how it organizes its learning activities, how much autonomy it accords its teaching personnel, and what procedures and policies it uses to harness human and material energies will decide whether the bureaucratic or the professional tendencies in a school dominate. And this will in turn determine the school culture. Hage's axiomatic theory of organization (1965, pp. 289-320) postulates that in any organization the emphasis of some structures will contribute to some functions more than to others. A highly centralized and stratified organization may be successful in achieving production targets, but it will do so at the expense of the level of job satisfaction of its employees and their level of commitment to the job. This is because such an organization will be characterized by a rigid and impersonal approach to the individual needs of its employees, and this will ultimately have adverse effects on the organization's capacity to maintain its level of productivity. Conversely, an educational organization that believes in empowering teachers and in recognizing their expertise and their need for professional autonomy will be an organization characterized by a professional and flexible approach to its members, and this will result in greater job satisfaction for the individual teacher.

Still, in most schools the clash between bureaucratic and professional values is unavoidable and the resulting conflict between administrators and teachers inevitable. Using bureaucratic principles as a point of departure for conceptual- izing organizational role conflicts, Corwin (1965) argues that conflict is institu- tionalized in the way schools are organized and administered. In an analysis of school conflicts based on a comparison between administrators' bureaucratic expectations and teachers' professional expectations, he reported that approxi- mately 45 percent of the conflicts involved teachers in opposition to administrators. According to Corwin's analysis, the higher the professional preparation and disposition of the teachers the higher the rates of conflict. He concludes that "the weight of evidence from this very limited sample suggests that there is a consistent pattern of conflict between teachers and administrators over the control of work, and that professionalization is a militant process" (p. 15).

Citing Gouldner (1959), Corwin also observed that "much organizational tension can be attributed to the fact that administrators frequently supervise and evaluate professional subordinates who are more competent in their work than

394 SAFFY

they are" (p. 6). This tension may be exacerbated by two important variables: the complexity of the organization and the degree of specialization that employees have achieved. This is because "specialization gives employees power; the more specialized they are, the less competent are administrators and laymen to supervise and evaluate them" (p. 9). Corwin suggests that concurrent development of specialization and complexity in organizations has "fertilized the soil for conflict between administrators and employees" (p. 9).

There is no doubt that the introduction of French immersion into heretofore Anglophone school organizations has created conditions of both complexity and specialization. Complexity is a condition because administering a French immersion school is essentially administering two different educational programs with often complex resource allocations, staffing difficulties, and division and supervision of instructional responsibilities. Specialization is a condition inherent in the fact that the language of instruction will be a different language from that used in the regular program. Since most bilingual education school principals are unilingual Anglophones, one must conclude that the increased complexity and specialization that French immersion brings with it to the school organization increase the chances of a clash between professional and bureaucratic values. There are also other factors that contribute to this potential for conflict. Olson and Bums (1983) present a picture of the differences between French immersion school principals and French immersion teachers which is not atypical. In an earlier study (1981), they reported that "school principals tended to hold only a bachelor's degree, earn $30,000 to $40,000 a year, and be male, Protestant, in their mid-forties or fifties, unilingual, and of Anglophone descent. Teachers, by contrast, were somewhat more likely to hold graduate degrees, earn $15,000 to $20,000 a year, and be female, Catholic, in their mid-twenties to thirties, bilingual, and of French-Canadian descent" (p. 11).

The clash between bureaucratic and professional values can also lead to flus- trations resulting from a reversal of role and status expectations. In his discussion of the great German sociologist Max Weber's conception of bureaucracy, Thompson (1961) observed that earlier forms of organizations relied on the "line of command" concept in which a superior derived his authority from his ability to master the knowledge and the techniques to accomplish the task. Mod- ern organizations incorporated advanced specialization as the manager and administrator lost the ability to command in one field after another but retained the right to issue orders and make judgment (pp. 12-13). Thompson observed that this evolution resulted in organizational interdependence, that is, the depen- dence of the manager or administrator (high status person) on the specialist (low status person) to do the job. This interdependence creates conditions in which the boss retains the full right to make decisions while having less and less ability to do so, and in which "authority is centralized but ability is inherently decen- tralized because it comes from practice rather than from definition" (pp. 46-47). This violates the role and status expectations of the high status person (manager, school administrator) who has to rely on the ability of a low-status person (spe-


cialized employee) to do the job. This violation of status expectations creates conditions of conflict: conflict between ability and hierarchical authority. Thus, in addition to the power that specialization gives employees, it creates conditions of interdependence which in turn are pregnant with potential for conflict between professional ability and hierarchical authority.

Specialization has of course made its way to educational organizations. It is evident in high schools and institutions of higher learning where the teaching of subject matters is divided in specialized departments. It is also present, to a less- er degree, in elementary schools in the division between primary and intermediate grades and in the division between teaching and administrative staff. The introduction of French immersion in elementary schools represents, however, an advanced form of specialization to which the elementary school organization has not been accustomed. And this is because, unlike a specialized subject like music for instance, French immersion is not a subject, nor is it an enrichment program that exists autonomously parallel to the regular program; it presents itself as an alternative and competing educational option, not as a complement to the regular program. Yet, it remains under the administrative prerogatives and bureaucratic power of administrators who, for the most part, are more at ease exercising their managerial prerogatives in the regular program. When they deal with French immersion, unilingual principals clearly find themselves in a situation of dependency that violates their status expectations.

The potential for conflict is further increased by another sort of dependency, that of the specialist on the bureaucrat. As Thompson points out, success in Western culture is defined in competitive and individualistic terms of relative social prestige and status, and this means that in order to have public recognition and "success .... one must succeed hiearchicaUy." "This situation," he concludes, "is painful for the specialist" (1961, p. 96). This is because it increases the specialist's dependency on the bureaucrat. In French immersion schools, this applies with poignancy to the French immersion teachers, because, on the one hand, they know that they must play by the rules of the game and compete hierarchically, and, on the other hand, they realize that because of their specialization their chances of integrating and competing in the mainstream program, where the opportunities for advancement and professional promotion exist, are drastically reduced. In addition, playing by the rules and trying to compete hierarchically make them dependent on administrators who are usually less specialized than they are, and in the case of the unilingual principal, demonstrably so.

Bilingual Programs and School Leadership

A Toronto Board of Education study reviewed 110 research studies conducted over a period of 25 years on bilingual education and bilingualism. Its authors found that "a certain air of silence" (Larter & Cheng, 1984, p. 111) surrounded the topic of French immersion employment. Indeed, there was little focus on French immersion teacher preparation, the relationship between bilingual teachers and unilingual administrators, or on the impact unilingual administration

396 SAFTY

may have on bilingual education. Like all teachers, the French immersion teachers have needs that they seek to

satisfy in the workplace: professional needs such as curriculum and instruction guidance from competent school leadership and emotional needs such as the need to belong, to be recognized, and to feel appreciated. It is the responsibility of the school principal to foster a school culture that will be conducive to the fulfilment of the professional and personal needs of all teachers. When the coexistence of French immersion teachers with regular program teachers proves problematic it is generally the result of the failure of the school administrator to create a school culture in which harmonious relationships between different professional groups can develop. Of course, a unilingual principal may prove far more successful than a bilingual principal at providing the school with a culture conducive to the development of professionally and personally rewarding experiences. The linguistic competency in French of a school principal has significant relevance to the French immersion teachers but no amount of fluency in French will compensate for a lack of "people" skills or lack of commitment to professional ideals, and certainly no amount of ease in French will be sufficient to provide the ingredients of administrative and curriculum leadership where none exists.

One of the most significant aspects of the French immersion culture with undeniable relevance to the professional environment of the school and to the degree of staff integration and commitment to its goals relates to the question of school leadership. Researchers agree that leadership plays "a catalyst role in what was felt to be the breakthrough in effective school research" (Mackenzie, 1983) and in the significant influence a principal can have on the school (Lortie, 1975). The effective administrative and educational leader is expected to involve teachers in decision making, provide curriculum leadership, and facilitate successful implementation of school programs, while attending to staff personal needs (DeVoise, 1984; Manasse, 1984). Such a leadership has been found to play a crucial role in enhancing prospects of integration in the school culture and fostering commitment to its general goals.

How administrators of bilingual education schools can be effective leaders has been the subject of little research. How non-French speaking school administrators can provide effective instructional leadership to French immersion teachers, the majority of whom are Francophones, is a question that only very few boards have had the inclination and the political will to examine with some degree of seriousness.

One of the most crucial roles a school principal is expected to play is that of instructional and supervisory leader. The credibility of such a role is affected by the professional knowledge of the principal in the area of content (that is, subject matters) and process (that is, pedagogical and teaching techniques) and by the supervisory approach the principal adopts. This in turn affects both the perceptions of the teachers and their acceptance of the credibility and the legitima- cy of the leadership role of the school principal. These perceptions will naturally affect the teachers' performance and level of job satisfaction. In their


study of the bases of supervisory power in organizations, Bachman, Bowers, and Marcus (1968) found that the most frequent reason given by employees for compliance with the wishes of supervisors was response to legitimate and expert power. That is to say, most employees complied with supervisory wishes because of their combined belief in the legitimate role and expertise of the supervisor. Moreover, the investigators observed that there was a consistently positive correlation between expert power and referent power, on the one hand, and worker satisfaction, on the other. That is to say, the more the employees identify with and believe in the expertise of the supervisor the more satisfaction they derive from their work. In their conclusion, the investigators wrote that "legitimate power was rated one of the two most important bases of power; however, it did not seem a consistent factor in organizational effectiveness, nor was it related significantly to total amount of control. Expert power was the other very prominent basis of power, and it was strongly and consistently co- related with satisfaction and performance" (19. 236).

This finding was confirmed here in Canada by a study conducted by Balder- son (1975) in which he investigated sources of power used by elementary school principals and their relationship to teachers' perceptions of satisfaction and performance. Balderson observed that "schools with principals whose power was perceived to rest on relevant expertise received high scores for teacher morale, teacher satisfaction with principal's performance, and the degree to which the principal favoured (1) teachers doing an effective job help- ing students learn, (2) teachers experimenting with new ideas and techniques, and (3) teachers suggesting ideas to improve the school." Balderson concluded that "if we also note that supervisors are involved in the task of achieving better instruction by working through others, that is teachers, it seems evident from these data that the effectiveness of supervisory practice will be enhanced by the adoption of practices based on expertise" (p. 5). Champagne and David (1985) also identified the teachers' trust in the supervisor and the perception of the supervisor as competent as significant factors in the process of supervision and evaluation.

If leadership in any school is a subtle and complex business (Nevi, 1986), it acquires greater dimensions of complexity in bilingual education schools, particularly in those run by unilingual administrators. While it is true that leadership is a concept that is difficult to define, it is also true, as we have seen, that perceptions of the group play a significant role in giving or denying certain individuals the consensual support required to lead. There is nothing subtle about a unilingual administration expected to provide curriculum, instructional, and supervisory leadership to both French and English components of a bilingual education program. And this reality is bound to dominate and affect the perceptions that go into deciding who is qualified to be a teacher. If French immersion teachers develop the perception that their unilingual, non-French speaking principal is unable to provide instructional and supervisory leadership these perceptions will deny that principal a significant portion of the consensual support required to lead.

Some questions are being asked about the wisdom of placing French immer-

398 ShFTu

sion schools under unilingual administrations. Olson and Bums (1984) recognize that the school leadership role of unilingual French immersion principals is jeop- ardized by their inability to understand and communicate in French. Guttman (1984) speaks of a leadership crisis in French immersion caused partly by the fact that most boards "have placed the traditional school principal without any French language skills or specialized training" (p. 20) in charge of French immersion programs." The abundant literature on the French immersion culture contains no serious inquiry into the relationship between French immersion teachers and their unilingual Anglophone principals, nor on the extent to which it affects integration into the school culture and commitment to its broader goals.

Unilingual Administration and the Question of Evaluation

One dimension of the relationship between French immersion teachers and the non-French speaking principals is particularly problematic because of its poten- tially crucial consequences. It has to do with the widespread practice of expect- ing and requiring unilingual administrators to supervise and evaluate immersion teachers operating in the component of the program in which French is the main language of instruction.

In addition to the statutory obligation to supervise and make a summative evaluation of the teachers' performance on the job on a periodic basis, principals are expected to provide clinical supervision and engage in formative evaluation of the teaching in their schools. Generally speaking, principals expect and seek to accomplish three broad goals through clinical supervision: a) ensure quality education by visiting classes and monitoring teaching and learning; b) facilitate the teachers' professional development by providing leadership in teaching and curriculum matters; and c) increase teachers' motivation through the fostering of a climate in which professional values are recognized and individual contributions are appreciated.

On all three counts we suggest that clinical supervision and evaluation of French immersion teachers by non-French speaking principals will at best be inadequate, as far as the French-speaking teachers are concerned, at worst a politicized exercise in which the "personality" of the immersion teacher plays a more dominant role than his/her professional expertise and pedagogical competency. We suggested earlier that the relationship between the immersion teachers and their non-French speaking principals is pregnant with significant potential for conflict. The question of teacher evaluation within the context of this relationship is an area best characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, and apprehension.

For instance, the non-French speaking evaluating principal often has to rely on non-content-based observation clues such as class tone, time on task, variety of activities presented to the students, and so forth. But the nature of the task as well as the quality and pedagogical usefulness of the activities are subordinated to the artificial observation of student and teacher "doing" something. Reported observations about significant aspects of teaching such as concept presentation, task analysis, questioning techniques, and varieties of modes of communication,


not to mention the not unimportant aspect of French language teaching, are necessarily inferred or deduced. The unilingual principal is thus expected to make important personal judgment on the immersion teacher's intellectual abilities as may be in evidence not through classroom observations but through observations of the teacher's interaction in the social milieu of the school.

This in effect means that the degree of integration within the school culture becomes all the more significant for the immersion teachers because their evaluation process extends beyond the classroom in many more critical ways than it does for the regular school teacher. Moreover, this implicit extension of the evaluation process beyond the classroom is rendered particularly trou- blesome for the unilingual principal because of the natural tendency of the immersion teachers, particularly Francophone teachers, to communicate with one another in French. This leaves the unilingual principal with little choice but to rely on vague approximations and unsatisfactory generalizations that may or may not reflect the talents, energies, professional skills, and diversity of approaches of the immersion teachers.

Moreover, while all processes involving a power relationship are open to abuse, the process under discussion contains little or no deterrence for abusive behaviour should a conflict occur. It is a commonplace to state that many a conflict are the result of misunderstanding and poor communication between people speaking the same language. In a French immersion school, already more vulnerable to conflict as we have seen, one can easily imagine the increased potential for conflict that resides in a power relationship between two individuals identifying with different cultural codes, symbolizing different social status- es, representing two different values (professional versus bureaucratic), defending different professional interests, wielding unevenly proportioned power, and speaking two different languages.

In addition, other realities influence the immersion teacher/unilingual principal relationship. For instance, the sustained interest in the program and the marked activism displayed by parents of children in the bilingual program usually evokes in the unilingual administrator a greater alertness to conflictual situations lest parental intervention create additional pressure. For the immersion teacher, this means greater politicization of the evaluation process in the sense that the relationship with the parents becomes a critical component in the evaluation of an immersion teacher's effectiveness. Good classroom immersion teachers may be judged political liabilities because of perceived poor public relations skills.

It is also significant to note that immersion teachers enjoy little or no independent political power as a group. Although they are members of their local and provincial associations, they do not muster wholehearted support within these organizations. The operative assumption seems to be that advancing the interest of the immersion teachers as a group, which would include, for instance, the promotion of immersion teachers into leadership positions, would not be compatible with the collective interest of the associations, the majority of whose members are regular program teachers.

400 SAFTY

All of this contributes to a situation in which the French speaking teachers have to operate in a greatly politicized environment, with more potential for conflict than is to be expected in the usual school environment, and without significant power at their disposal. Because of the uneven power distribution, the potential for turning conflict and tension into positive and constructive reform may be effectively neutralized.

Evaluating Without Understanding I have suggested that perhaps nowhere in the immersion teacher-unilingual administrator relationship is the potential for leadership, and at the same time for conflict, greater than in the area of teacher evaluation. Although most school districts are theoretically wedded to the principle of formative evaluation, that is, an evaluation procedure that focusses primarily on improving the teacher's performance rather than on pronouncing a summative judgment on it, there is no doubt that the reality of relative power is never absent from the process. The onus is often placed on the French immersion teachers to devise strategies that will reduce the power factor in evaluation procedures (Safty, 1989). It is reasonable to assume that the unilingual principal and the immersion teacher who is teaching entirely in French approach the process with trepidation about its ambiguities, its logic, and its benefits. While it is safe to speculate that most unilingual administrators who are put in that delicate position would try to go out of their way to be useful and helpful to the immersion teacher, and there are many ways of doing that, there are instances when feelings of lack of qualifica- tions and linguistic competency would make it expedient to bring to the fore the political ingredients of the power relationship.

This can lead to embarrassing incidents that expose the inadequacy of the system in place. One teacher told me that on the recommendation of her unilingual principal her contract was not renewed after four months of successful immersion teaching. During that time the principal did not set foot in her classroom to observe her teaching but was allegedly sensitive to complaints about excessive amounts of homework.

At the other extreme, a strange evaluation process pitted a recently arrived Francophone teacher against a unilingual high school principal. The two individuals represent text-book case studies of the conflict between professional and bureaucratic values and of the clash between specialization and hierarchical power. The differences between the unilingual principal and the francophone teacher were typical of the picture painted by Olson and Bums. The principal, an Anglophone former physical education teacher, in his fifties, with no graduate education, highly paid, neither spoke nor understood French. The Franco- phone teacher was a specialist of French literature, in his twenties, possessed a master's degree in French literature from a leading French university, received a first-year scale salary, and spoke English well. The strange evaluation process included 17 evaluation visits in the space of three weeks only two months after the Francophone teacher started his first teaching assignment. Three people par-


ticipated in this evaluation process - - the unilingual principal, a unilingual district consultant, and a (theoretically) bilingual language co-ordinator. (The School Act in British Columbia does not provide for the latter two to participate in evaluation processes.) The three people involved did not meet with the teacher to co-ordinate their overall strategies or to explain the reasons for their frequent visits. The result was Kafkaesque. The following lengthy quotations are invaluable, not only for what they reveal about the many pitfalls that character- ize the immersion teacher-unilingual administrator relationship, but also for the glimpse they afford into the potential for abuse of power inherent in the supervisory process. I quote from the teacher's letter of complaint to the principal, and copied to the school district superintendent, upon learning of the final negative report. The names have been changed to protect the identities of the people involved.

Your note (of March 26) brought to my attention that students and parents had reported to you that I was "a considerate and caring teacher in my dealing with the students," that I definitely knew my subject matters; that I "spoke beautiful French," and that "I served as an excellent role model." You concluded with some kind remarks about my good appearances, my punctuality, my preparation and informed me that I was "on target" with your expectations and that I was "open to suggestions." This was on March 26. On April 24, I learned from you for the first time at a meeting which I had initiated that I was getting a negative report.

You explained to me that the three of you did not meet with me because you felt that there was no need to do so since you, Mr. Grapper and Mr. Boileau were "all heading in the same direction." This information came as yet another surprise to me, and I dare say that it would not have occurred to me that you that you were all going in the same direction .... Don't you think that I would have benefited from knowing what that direction was anyway? This way I would have known that Mr. Grapper's advice to me to ask the students to stand up when answering questions would displease you; that Mr. Boileau's injunction to do more direct teaching would be dismissed by Mr. Grapper who wanted indirect teaching. I would have realized that Mr. Grapper's silent sponge activity would not go very well with Mr. Boileau who wanted an interactive sponge. And I would have learned that Madeline Hunter was a controversial person." (Personal communication)

The negative report written by the unilingual principal found the knowledge of French and French literature of this teacher to be just "acceptable." The teacher appealed, and after several hearings with school board officials and interven- tions by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation's lawyer, the senior administrators decided on a compromise. They withdrew the principal's highly questionable report but refused to renew the teacher's temporary contract. They thus recognized the dubious nature of the report and by extension the incompe- tency of its author. At the same time their decision not to renew the teacher's

402 SAFTY

contract sent a strong symbolic message to discourage similar future challenges by highly specialized French immersion teachers who might be tempted to question the competency of their non-French speaking supervisor evaluators. The emotional ordeal that the teacher in this case suffered led to a nervous breakdown and a decision to quit the professional altogether. The principal was later promoted.

Whatever curriculum and administrative leadership skills and personal judgment this principal may have demonstrated in other situations, they were greatly impaired by his inability to understand the language of instruction. The conflict was further exacerbated by his resorting to the help of other district administrators who may have not been trained for the task either. Whatever the intention of this principal may have been, the process he used increased confusion, frus- tration and resulted in a confrontation which quickly acquired the political dimensions of a French versus English showdown.

Under normal evaluation procedures, the intervention of outside non-supervisory district personnel is usually the result of an agreed-upon remedial strategy, which is part of the formative approach to teacher evaluation which the majority of school districts have theoretically accepted. But a remedial strategy requires careful diagnosis of the teaching style, of the effectiveness of presentation of subject matters and an able assessment of the learning situation - - all of which require proper understanding of the language of instruction.

Another problem which this special case brought to the fore relates to the fact that in the provinces not requiring supervisory certification - - and to my knowledge most provinces don't - - the district personnel called upon to judge or diagnose the teaching of an immersion teacher may not be adequately pre- pared, linguistically and pedagogically, for the task. The majority of such personnel who are responsible for providing administrative and curriculum leadership to the bilingual programs are unilingual administrators (Guttman, 1983; Wilton et al., 1984; Singh, 1986). When some supposedly bilingual administrators are chosen by senior administrators to be district consultants or co-ordinators, there is generally confusion about what constitutes bilingual competency. Since there is no established criteria by which to decide the level of bilingualism of individuals applying for administrative positions in the bilingual education schools, the term "bilingual" is left to describe a wide continuum of competencies. It is safe to speculate that many bilingual administrators pos- sess what we shall call theoretical bilingualism - - that is, the ability to understand and communicate at a level that is largely functional but not sophisticated enough to comprehend and discuss ideas and concepts. It is not infrequent for immersion teachers to find themselves in a situation where a judgment, often with significant consequences, is made on their linguistic competency by a theoretically bilingual district administrator whose linguistic competencies are demonstrably far inferior to theirs.

In my discussions with immersion teachers from British Columbia and other provinces, the question of their being evaluated while teaching full time in French by a principal who does not understand the language is at best difficult


to comprehend and at worst a source of apprehension and anxiety. It is reasonable to assume that non-French speaking evaluators of French immersion teachers while in no way critical of the situation, for after all their status and privileged positions are at stake, must feel ambivalent about such a situation. It is also reasonable to speculate that they must have mixed feelings not only about the logic of the situation but also about their competency to exercise leadership responsibilities in providing supervisory help, curriculum guidance, and pedagogical assistance.

Conclusion

French immersion is rapidly becoming an integral part of the Canadian education system and as such deserves to be accorded a more significant status than it has thus far received. It should be considered no longer an experimental second-language acquisition program but rather a bilingual education program that offers a serious alternative to the regular program. Acceptance of this argument will free us from the reductive bounds of second-language-based research about French immersion and will allow us to start looking at the host of other variables that enter into the making of an effective educational program in which the instruction takes place in two languages. Effective administration of bilingual education is one of the many areas that have been neglected and that need investigation.

Schools function as bureaucratic organizations in which trained people perform professional functions and seek to fulfil personal needs. The leadership style of the school administrator will determine the nature of the relationship between bureaucratic and professional values in a given school. The successful administrator need not speak two or three languages in order to create in the school a culture in which two different professional groups speaking two different languages can share rewarding professional and personal experiences. Still, the complexity and the advanced level of specialization inherent in the introduction of a French immersion program into a heretofore unilingual English- instruction school increases the potential for conflict, particularly between unilingual administrators and French-speaking teachers. At the same time unilingual administration robs immersion teachers of much needed curriculum and supervisory leadership in French, the language in which they teach. Stephen Krashen (1982) argues that the success of a French immersion program is largely the result of placing the methodological focus on the message not on the form, on what is being said not on how it is being said. French immersion is successful because it offers "a comprehensible input." In their present forms most bilingual education programs present a situation in which immersion teachers are deprived of adequate supervisory help because their unilingual principals are simply unable to judge and evaluate the content of what is being taught. The comprehensible output of the French component of bilingual education is largely incomprehensible to the majority of those whose responsibility it is to evaluate the teaching in, and the effectiveness of, the program.

The immersion teachers' most urgent professional needs are in the area of cur-

4 ~ SA~Y

riculum leadership. There is an urgent need for a leadership that keeps the teachers in the bilingual programs abreast of innovation in pedagogy, in curriculum development and implementation, in instructional effectiveness, as well as in subject matter expertise. The need for such leadership is most acutely felt at the district and at the school levels - - hence it is the responsibility of school boards to help provide that leadership. Recognition of the role of French immersion as a program of bilingual education would help the inquiry in its effectiveness in dealing with the many issues facing the educational community today. Bilingual administration for bilingual education would not necessarily eradicate potential for conflict, nor would it create leadership where none exists. In recognizing the professional and personal needs of the French component of the bilingual education programs, bilingual administration would be a significant step in the direction of the much needed inquiry into the constituent elements of effective bilingual education.

REFERENCES

Bachman, J. D., et al. (1968). Bases of supervisory power: A comparative study in five organizational settings. In A. S. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Balderson, J. H. (1975). Principal power bases: Some observations. The Canadian Administrator, (14)7, 3--4.

Bienvenue, R. (1984). Ethnic attitudes and French immersion enrollments. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 16(2), 15-29.

Canadian Education Association. (1983). French immersion and school boards: Issues and effects. Toronto: Author.

Champagne, D. W., & David, R. J. (1985). One supervisory relationship. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, March. (Cited in C. A. Haycock (1987), The role of content and process in principal's supervisory intervention on the classroom management practices of teachers: Three case stud&s. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of British Columbia.)

Corwin, R. (1965). Professional persons in public organizations. Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly, 1(3), 1-22.

DeVoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Edu- cationalLeadership, 41(5), 16.

Gouldner, A. (1959). Organizational tensions. In R. Merton et al. (Eds.), Sociology today. New York: Basic Books.

Guttman, M.A.J. (1983). There's more to French immersion than social class. Inter- change, 14(1), 17-22.

Hage, L (1965). An axiomatic theory of organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(3), 289-320.

Knezevich, S. L (1975). Administration of public education. New York: Harper & Row. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second-language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1984, Winter). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Lan-

guage and Soc&ty, 12, 61-64. Latter, S., & Cheng, M. (1984). Bilingual education and bilingualism: A review of

research literature. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, Mackenzie, D. M. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisal of some


recent trends. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 5-17. Manasse, A. L. (1984). Principals as leaders of high performing systems. Educational

Leadership, 41(5), 37-39. Nevi, C. (1986). Half-truths that hinder staff development. Principal, 65(3), A,A, A.6. Olson, P., & Bums, G. (1981). Implementation and politics in French immersion.

Unpublished report, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Olson, P., & Bums, G. (1983). Politics, class, and happenstance. French Immersion in a

Canadian context. Interchange, 14 (1), 1-16. Salty, A. (1988). French immersion and the making of a bilingual society. Canadian

Journal of Education, 13(2), 243-262. Safty, A. (1989). Comment se faire un alli~ du directeur-tvaluateur qui ne parle pas

frangais? Contact, 8(2), 6--8. Singh, R. (1986). Immersion: Problems and principles. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 42(3), 559-569. Stern, H. H. (1984). A quiet language revolution: Second-language teachings in Canadi-

an contexts. Achievements and new directions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 40(5), 506-524.

Thompson, V. (1961). Modern organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (F. Parsons, Ed.; A.

M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Wilton, F. et al. (1984). National study of French immersion teacher training and profes-

sional development. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.

Address of author: Department of Language Education University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z5 Canada

french immersion: bilingual education and unilingual administration

Documents