Challenges: The New Environment for Language Training in the Federal Public Service

Before 2012

The Official Languages Policy Framework (2004) positioned language training as a service that had to be provided by federal institutions to employees who needed to develop the language skills required for their position or function.

The Policy on Official Languages for Human Resources Management (2004) set out language training directives. It identified three major functions of language training:

1. Non-imperative staffing: Language training is provided to a person appointed to a bilingual position whose linguistic profile does not meet the requirements of the position but who has made a formal commitment to acquire the language skills required for the position within two years of the appointment. The Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order (2005) states that public servants who agree to become bilingual to obtain a non-imperative appointment are entitled to “language training at public expense.” (section 1.(a))
2. Professional development: Language training may also be provided to employees who want to develop their second-language skills in order to advance in their career.
3. Learning retention: The institution is responsible for helping employees who have learned their second language maintain the acquired skills, by providing them with resources and working conditions conducive to the use of both official languages. Employees are also responsible for taking measures to maintain their language skills.

The Policy on Official Languages for Human Resources Management (2004) also stated that teaching methods and other teaching approaches, as well as scheduling, duration of training, training-related evaluation processes, premises and materials, would be adapted to accommodate persons with special needs, disabilities or learning disabilities.

Since 2012

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Policy on Official Languages (2012) positions language training as a way of attaining institutional bilingualism:

Institutional bilingualism is the result of appropriate staffing processes as well as an investment by the institution in employees' language training and development, and the availability of adequate technological and other material resources. (section 3.6)

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Directive on Official Languages for People Management (2012) states that deputy heads are responsible for the following:

Offering language training to employees who wish to develop their second-language skills in order to advance in their career and possibly hold bilingual positions in the future. English-speaking and French-speaking employees have equal access to language training for career development purposes. The terms and conditions are negotiated between the employee and the manager. They reflect the respective needs of employees and the institution, as well as the available resources. (section 6.1.8)

This directive also states that, in exceptional situations where a designated bilingual position is staffed with a candidate who does not meet the language requirements, managers are responsible for the following:

Ensuring language training is provided as soon as possible so the candidate can acquire the second-language skills required. (section 6.3.3.1)

Appendix 2 of this directive states that, when the linguistic profile of a position is modified to become bilingual, the incumbent of the position is encouraged to take language training, and the institution must provide this training.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat does not play an operational role in language training, but it is responsible for developing the policies and directives mentioned in section 2.2 as well as the Policy on Learning, Training, and Development (2006).

Public Service Commission of Canada

While the Public Service Commission of Canada was responsible for providing language training in the federal public service until 2004, today it plays a parallel role. It monitors staffing, which could impact language training, and can therefore make recommendations on staffing. It also evaluates public servants' second-language skills (evaluation of public servants' first-language skills is the responsibility of the employee's manager). As a result, the role of the Commission may have a more direct impact on language training. Changes made to language proficiency tests affect the pass rate and, as a result, the duration of the language training necessary.

Canada School of Public Service

The Canada School of Public Service was created in 2004, combining three institutions: Language Training Canada, Training and Development Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Before that, Language Training Canada fell under the Public Service Commission of Canada. In 2006, the Canada School of Public Service's mandate was clarified in what was called “the new training model.” Under this new model, responsibility for training (including language training) was shared between the employer (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat), the employees, and the deputy heads of institutions. The new language training model is anchored in the following key elements:

• Bilingualism is acquired through career-long learning;
• Public servants have greater access to flexible learning approaches, methods and tools;
• Maintenance is a legitimate and integral part of workplace culture;
• Language training is available through quality-assured providers.^{Footnote 8}

The Canada School of Public Service therefore had to focus on establishing standards for quality assurance and compliance monitoring of authorized suppliers; developing on-line language training resources; researching learning methods and technologies, especially to respond to special needs; and supporting the development of employee language training plans.

While assuming these roles, the Canada School of Public Service continued to offer language training until 2012 to fill in the gaps when the available service was insufficient. For example, it provided full-time training to groups learning English in the National Capital Region, and coordinated and delivered language training in the regions. It also continued to provide language training to persons with learning disabilities. In April 2012, the School stopped providing language training directly and coordinating delivery.

The Canada School of Public Service set up a partnership with Canadian universities to broaden access to its second-language learning products. This initiative, funded under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008–2013, was intended to contribute to public service renewal by developing the bilingual capacity of students interested in a career in the public service. However, the Government of Canada did not include this initiative in the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013–2018.

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for managing calls for tenders and standing offers, including those involving language training service providers. All the standing offers are currently being renewed in this respect. Until very recently, 11 standing offers covered full-time and part-time, individual and group, English and French second-language training in the National Capital Region and in the other regions. In 2013, the Department will have put in place around 30 new standing offers for language training.

Minister Responsible for Official Languages^{Footnote 9}

Over the past 10 years, the minister responsible for official languages has overseen three horizontal initiatives—the 2003 Action Plan for Official Languages, the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008–2013 and the most recent Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013–2018—which have illustrated the government's priorities with respect to official languages. While $38.6 million was allocated to language training for public servants in the 2003 Action Plan, nothing was allocated for this purpose in the 2008 Roadmap for Linguistic Duality or the recent Roadmap for Official Languages. This represents a significant decline as far as the priorities set out in these horizontal initiatives are concerned.

Approximately 50% of institutions have a language training directive

Deputy heads can use various strategies to promote the learning and use of both official languages in their institution. Some have implemented a policy to this end; others a directive or guidelines on language training in their institution.^{Footnote 10} The survey found that approximately half of the institutions consulted (36) have a directive, the majority of which (30) introduced this directive in the past 10 years. Most of these institutions also have language training guidelines. The policy statements that were consulted or that were presented describe, in most cases, a sharing of responsibilities between three levels: senior management, which provides leadership; team managers, who see to learning retention for themselves and their staff; and employees, who make a personal commitment to learning and maintaining their second-language skills.

Leading by example

Senior management can also promote language training through leading by example. Using both official languages at public events and talking about the importance of knowing and using both languages in the workplace encourages employees to consider language training for their own professional development. It was observed that in some institutions, senior management makes language training a central element of the organizational culture.

The champions are leaders in providing information

The vast majority (93%) of institutions consulted provide information to employees on language training in a variety of ways. New employees of a given institution may be exposed to this in the orientation documentation they receive on arrival (see Table 4.3 in appendix). However, only about half of the institutions consulted report adhering to this practice. The intranet may include a space dedicated to available language training. Some institutions follow up directly with employees who have included language training in their training plans. Posters or e-mails occasionally announce language training activities open to everyone. In general, the information that is presented seems to be more about the types of language training and the procedures to request it. This information is most often distributed by Human Resources and supervisors (see Table 4.4 in appendix). It is interesting to note that the official languages champions play this role in about 45% of the institutions consulted, which is a testament to their leadership. However, the deputy head only exercises this leadership in less than 5% of cases.

Language training is not always an integral part of professional development programs

Some institutions make knowledge of both official languages a normal and early step in all employees' professional development. Integrating professional training and language training strengthens the credibility of language training. According to the survey, about 70% of institutions consider language training to be an integral part of their employees' professional development. It is nevertheless surprising that about 20% of institutions do not see it this way.

Data collection insufficient for accountability

For many years, the Canada School of Public Service and the Public Service Commission of Canada (Language Training Canada) collected data on language training in the public service as a whole. According to the School, this data made it possible to track the number of learners, the number of hours of training received, the pace of learning, the starting points and the results obtained. Under the new training model, the Canada School of Public Service now only compiles data for private language schools on the standing offer list.

The Policy on Official Languages for Human Resources Management (2004) specified the type of data institutions had to compile. However, the Directive on Official Languages for People Management (2012) is somewhat vague in this regard, making heads of human resources responsible for “keeping files and information systems current in order to provide reports to the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer within the Treasury Board Secretariat … upon request.”

The vast majority (84%) of respondents to the survey said they keep a record of language training data (see Table 4.13 in appendix). Nearly a quarter of these respondents admit that data is not collected systematically. Most institutions collect data on the number of employees who receive training, the number of training courses provided and the number of hours of training taken. The survey found that nearly all institutions with a budget dedicated to language training also report compiling financial data on language training. This data deals essentially with supplier-related costs. Costs related to replacing personnel and the salary equivalent of time spent by employees on training are rarely calculated.

Language training should be an essential commodity, like pens. This way, a central authority would monitor how much it costs government-wide. [translation] – Study participant

According to the in-depth interviews that were conducted, these data records are often not incorporated into information management systems and are not always available electronically. Given the lack of standardization in the data collected, it would be difficult to assemble the necessary information, and even more difficult to make comparisons. This means no official publication reports this data for the public service as a whole.

Manager performance

Some institutions demonstrate that language training can be taken into account not only during employees' performance evaluations, but also during those of their managers. Some of the institutions consulted evaluate their managers based on their contribution to the advancement of official languages in their division. This evaluation of their performance determines whether employees reporting to the manager meet the language requirements of their positions, whether their second-language tests are up to date, whether the manager makes efforts to promote employees' second-language retention and whether employees use their second language.

More imperative staffing = less language training

As 90% of the institutions responding to the survey reported, mandatory language training resulting from non-imperative staffing is a top priority. However, this mandatory training seems to be declining. Most of the interview respondents pointed out that imperative staffing reduces the need for this training. This fact appears to be corroborated in the recent Public Service Commission of Canada Annual Report:^{Footnote 11}

Over the past six years, appointees entitled to receive language training because they did not meet the language requirements of the position when appointed through a non-imperative process accounted for a decreasing share of appointments, falling from 1.7% in 2005-2006 to 1.0% this year.

The order of priority for the following needs varies by institution:

• institutional succession;
• helping employees who participate in national or interdepartmental meetings;
• increasing the chances of promotion; and
• language retention.

Employee interest is an important criterion

An additional criteria: The employee is willing to devote personal time and resources to learning the second language. – Study participant

A number of criteria can be used to determine which employees would benefit from language training at the institution's expense. Employees' degree of initiative or interest seems to be one of the most important criteria: the vast majority of institutions refer to it in the survey (see Table 4.2 in appendix). For example, some institutions expect interested employees to make an effort to take language training outside the workplace or to have demonstrated good performance in previous training. Employees' degree of commitment during language training, specifically attendance, participation and performance, are also taken into account. Some institutions have learners sign an agreement stating their responsibilities and what is expected of them. Other criteria are also involved, such as management potential or succession needs.

Half of institutions have staff dedicated to language training management

When language training management was decentralized, the costs were transferred to the institutions. Some of them report having had to create language training management units to compensate for the withdrawal of the Canada School of Public Service. However, other institutions report having terminated the services of language training advisors due to budget limitations. According to the survey, half of the institutions currently have personnel dedicated to language training management and, for a quarter of these respondents, the personnel have been in place since before 2006. In the majority of cases, this represents one full-time equivalent or less.

Budget allocations can be made centrally by the institution or decentralized to administrative units. Some institutions have opted for centralized language training services provided to all personnel, consisting of training centres, media libraries, teachers or pedagogical advisors. Services provided this way, most often for professional development purposes, are under the institution's responsibility. Otherwise, the training is paid for with the administrative unit budget, on approval of the manager and based on funding availability.

Since 2006, the budget has stayed the same in 50% of institutions

The survey found that three quarters of institutions have dedicated language training budgets. Of these, a quarter indicate that these budgets have decreased since 2006 (see Table 4.12 in appendix), close to half state that the budget has remained the same and about another quarter say that their budget has increased.

Since 2011, budget cuts have affected language training for professional development purposes most of all

The Strategic and Operating Review initiated in 2011 seems to have led to a decrease in the budgets allocated to language training. The institution representatives that were interviewed spoke of cuts varying between 30% and 60% of their language training budget or activities. This reduction affects training for professional development purposes or learning retention in particular, because mandatory training is the priority. However, these institutions say they have found other ways to provide training, for example in groups rather than individually. According to the survey, institutions that report having a budget dedicated to language training estimate that this budget has fluctuated as follows since 2011 (see Table 4.12 in appendix):

• For mandatory training, about 20% of institutions have seen their budget drop, 60% have seen it stay the same and 10% have seen it increase.
• For professional development training, 30% of these institutions have seen their budget drop, about 50% have seen it stay the same and 5% have seen it increase.

Approximately 75% of these same respondents believe the budgetary resources dedicated to language training meet their present needs (see Table 4.11 in appendix).

Description of bar chart

This is a bar chart. The title of the chart is “Since 2011, the proportion of the overall budget allocated to language training…”

The y axis shows percentages from zero to 60, in intervals of 10.

The x axis shows the labels “Has decreased,” “Has stayed the same” and “Has increased.”

For each of the x axis labels, there are two bars. Each bar extends vertically on the chart. One is black in colour, and one is grey. A legend to the right of the chart explains that the black bar represents “Mandatory training,” while the grey bar represents “Professional development.” There are six bars in total.

For “Has decreased” the black bar is at 19 percent, while the grey bar is at 30 percent.

For “Has stayed the same” the black bar is at 57 percent, while the grey bar is at 47 percent.

For “Has increased” the black bar is at 8 percent, while the grey bar is at 6 percent.

Multiple ways to access suppliers

The availability of language training is currently managed in a variety of ways:

• comprehensive standing offers managed by Public Works and Government Services Canada and supervised by the Canada School of Public Service;
• standing offers from the institution;
• ad hoc competitive processes managed by the institutions;
• sole source suppliers retained by the institutions; and
• sharing resources among multiple institutions.

Description of bar chart

This is a bar chart. The title of the chart is “Ways of choosing service providers.”

The y axis shows the labels “Public Works and Government Services Canada standing offer,” “Competitive process,” “Sole source” and “Standing offer with the institution.”

The x axis shows percentages from zero to 80, in intervals of 10.

For each of the y axis labels, there is one bar. Each bar extends horizontally on the chart and is black in colour. There are four bars in total.

For “Public Works and Government Services Canada standing offer” the bar is at 71 percent.

For “Competitive process” the bar is at 60 percent.

For “Sole source” the bar is at 24 percent.

For “Standing offer with the institution” the bar is at 21 percent.

At the time of the survey, about 70% of respondents said that they used the standing offers from Public Works and Government Services Canada (see graph on next page and, for more details, Table 4.8 in appendix). The Department, together with the Canada School of Public Service, has undertaken the renewal of all the language training standing offers.^{Footnote 12}Since 2013, it has had close to 30 new standing offers in place for the National Capital Region.^{Footnote 13}

Until now, some institutions have opted for their own standing offers. According to the survey, 20% of institutions still use this method. Some institutions also launch calls for tenders to choose a service provider for a fixed period. This method was used by 60% of the survey respondents. The in-depth interviews revealed that this method was particularly useful for federal offices in the regions. In some cases, institutions also use a private school, or hire schools or language teachers directly for a fixed period, as needed. Nearly a quarter of survey respondents say they have used this method.

Nearly 90% of survey respondents are nevertheless of the opinion that current access to language training providers meets their needs (see Table 4.11 in appendix). Moreover, 85% indicated that these services meet their training objectives, and 80% feel they are getting good value for money.

I am surprised we are still going in this trend of not sharing. Sharing is all over government, yet we are decentralizing language learning! – Study participant

Sharing benefits institutions

Some institutions pool their resources in order to more easily access language training services. This is the case in the regions, for example, where some regional federal councils coordinate resource sharing and the determination of needs in order to provide services to institutions that do not have the required number of learners or funds.

For certain institutions with more developed training facilities, another form of resource sharing involves allowing other institutions to use their services on a cost-recovery basis. In the National Capital Region, for example, some institutions have memoranda of understanding for service sharing with neighbouring institutions or institutions with complementary or comparable mandates.

The best price, but at what cost?

… the current approach, which almost always favours the lowest bidder and penalizes quality schools. [translation] – Study participant

The study found that these ways of hiring service suppliers are not without risk. Representatives from private schools affiliated with AILIA expressed their dissatisfaction with the standing offers system in place before 2013. They said that the qualification criteria were very demanding and encouraged serious schools to invest in facilities and professional development, only to then receive few students. AILIA members expressed discontent with the number of institutions looking for discount suppliers rather than using the comprehensive standing offers for this purpose. These representatives and other interview participants were also displeased that contracts awarded to bidders offering the lowest price introduced a number of suppliers who sacrificed quality to profitability. Several of them also observed that these suppliers made the lowest bid but took more time to achieve the expected learning results. They also stated that, at this lower price, these suppliers cannot invest in the necessary resource development, equipment or expertise. In order to counter this detrimental effect, some players are calling for an accreditation mechanism for all language training suppliers.

Sometimes, language schools will give a lower estimate of time, hoping to get the contract and then add hours of learning during the process. – Study participant

The survey of institutions found that the cost of services is the key criteria used by the most (90%) institutions (see Table 4.9 in appendix). Reputed quality is the most important factor for about 75% of respondents, while being qualified by a standing offer was selected by only about 45% of respondents. Note that the recent standing offers contain a large number of requirements for suppliers, for example, qualified teachers and pedagogical advisors (training and experience); hiring, professional development and teaching personnel coaching plans; teaching spaces; computer equipment; Internet connection; rest and meal areas; accessibility for people with reduced mobility; and parking availability.

The key issue here is ensuring the standing offers are actually used by the institutions. The schools that took these offers seriously and equipped themselves with the resources necessary to provide quality training are penalized, because they invested to meet the criteria so they could train learners within the prescribed time frames, but then did not receive a sufficient number of learners.

Challenges in the regions

Recent changes to language training management seem to have posed particular challenges in the regions. With the end of the group training coordination and service delivery role played by the Canada School of Public Service regional offices, institutions in the regions feel they were left on their own. Private language schools are rare in the regions or seem to have difficulty meeting the conditions required by the Public Works and Government Services Canada standing offer calls for tenders. In addition, the end of full-time group classes, previously provided and coordinated by the Canada School of Public Service, meant private instruction had to be used more often, which is obviously more expensive. The consequence is that budgets are used mostly for mandatory training, to the detriment of professional development, succession preparation and learning retention.

The challenge of quality assurance

Currently, the quality assurance function is the responsibility of the Canada School of Public Service. However, this institution can only exercise this function in the context of comprehensive standing offers. This means a large part of language training is not subject to quality control. More systematic use of the new standing offers put in place by Public Works and Government Services Canada could correct this situation. However, the study revealed that the Canada School of Public Service cannot easily fulfill this role with the resources available to it outside the National Capital Region. The School currently has only two regional offices, and they must cover immense territories with limited budget and staff. Language training advisors in institutions, who could previously exercise a certain degree of monitoring of the quality of services offered, have almost all given way to human resources units, which have less experience with language training.

No other choice but individual training

Individual language training was recommended when more financial resources were available. This method has the advantage of responding to the needs and availability of the employee. It can be provided on a part-time or full-time basis, and is more frequently used for mandatory training. Given the significant costs, however, today it is mostly used in cases where the learner's position does not accommodate participation in group training, or when federal offices do not have the critical mass to form a group of learners, as is often the case in the regions. According to the survey, part-time training is used more often than full-time, even though institutions use both methods (see Table 4.5 in appendix). One of the issues that arose in the regions following the Canada School of Public Service's withdrawal from the delivery and coordination of training is precisely the increased use of individual training, with a corresponding impact on the overall language training budget. The Canada School of Public Service's withdrawal could in fact end up costing the language training system more.

Group training is favoured by institutions

Group training is certainly the most common method. Many institutions advocate this method, because it is more economical and meets the needs of mandatory training, professional development and learning retention. In addition, it can be provided on a part-time or full-time basis, in a classroom at the supplier's location or in the workplace. However, it is less flexible than individual training and can be more difficult to implement when the number of learners is limited. To overcome this challenge, certain institutions agree to share the course offerings. In some regions, organizations such as regional federal councils coordinate the pooling of resources and needs to create a critical mass allowing group training. The most recent standing offers from Public Works and Government Services Canada establish a variety of group training options available to all institutions, based on region.^{Footnote 14}

On-line learning is the way of the future

Self-study is a learning method that is increasingly being recommended. The Canada School of Public Service has a mandate to develop resources for this purpose and now offers around 50 products, including on-line learning and self-evaluation tools, in English and in French, to improve or maintain language skills. It is accessible to public servants via the School's learning management system portal MyAccount.^{Footnote 15} Federal institutions often have spaces reserved for training that also provide materials for self-study of the second language. These resources are useful tools for voluntary learners, but these learners also need to receive help through other activities that tap into their motivation to learn.

Bilingual meetings: a common way of strengthening the use of both official languages

One of the problems related to training is the method used for language retention. When asked about this topic, close to 85% of institutions said they put strategies in place to promote employees' language retention (see Table 4.10 in appendix). The variety of activities mentioned attest to this effort:

• mentoring: employees can have colleagues act as their mentor in their second language;
• pairing: Anglophone and Francophone employees who are learning their second language participate in exchange activities;
• practice groups;
• grammar workshops;
• intensive short-term training;
• lunchtime conferences or discussions and French Lunch;
• let's Speak English / Parlons français days;
• toastmasters clubs;
• movie lunches;
• radio listening or television watching sessions;
• reading newspapers or magazines; and
• pins that say Help me improve my English (or French) or I want to improve my English (or French).

The questionnaire also included a list of retention activities that institutions could choose to illustrate their practices. Nearly all respondents chose bilingual meetings, while around half chose from the other options, including informal workplace training sessions, employee pairing, language days and activities, and a reminder on the language training available to all. Around 90% of respondents indicated they encourage their employees to use their second language during and after language training, particularly by holding bilingual meetings and creating opportunities to communicate in both official languages. Lastly, one fifth of respondents were of the opinion that their employees do not succeed in maintaining their skills despite the tools provided (see Table 4.11 in appendix). In fact, a few survey respondents suggested that language retention be included in employees' performance evaluations.

We know, however, that bilingual meetings are still a major challenge for federal institutions. According to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's recent report on official languages, “ … a small majority stated that meetings are conducted in both official languages and that employees may use the official language of their choice during meetings in designated bilingual regions.”^{Footnote 16} The results of the 2011 Public Service Employee Survey indicate there is a difference in the number of Anglophones (88%) and Francophones (74%) who “strongly agree” or “mostly agree” with the statement “During meetings in my work unit, I feel free to use the official language of my choice.”^{Footnote 17}

Budgetary resources are a deciding factor in language training for professional development purposes

The choice of learning methods is usually made jointly by the employee and the supervisor. The survey of institutions revealed that the employee is generally called on to participate in the choice, especially when it is for their professional development, but the supervisor plays a prominent role (see Table 4.6 in appendix). The other players mentioned were the employee's branch and the human resources or official languages unit.

Among the criteria used to make this choice, institutions recognize that the employee's workload and the available budget are most important and take precedence over the employee's preferences or special needs (see Table 4.7 in appendix). The budgetary resources criterion is an even more important factor in the case of language training for professional development than in the case of mandatory training.

The survey also revealed that three quarters of institutions allow their employees to take language training during work hours, without having to make up these hours. In comparison, 85% of institutions provide the same accommodation when it involves other types of professional training.

Perceived difference between the second-language evaluation test and the ability to communicate in the second official language

The survey brought to light the opinions of institutions regarding the relationship between language training, language test results and employees' actual second-language skills (see Table 4.11 in appendix). Three quarters of respondents believe that language training enables employees to prepare for a test, but that the training is not enough to make them comfortable using the acquired skills in their work. In addition, the same number of respondents believes there are employees who can communicate effectively in their second language but who have difficulty passing the language proficiency test. These perceptions suggest a relationship between language training and the results of second-language evaluation tests, but do not suggest a relationship between these test results and employees' second-language proficiency, or between language proficiency and test results.

Language training needs

1. How are language training needs determined within your institution? Do the regions and head office use the same process?
2. Are specific criteria used to choose which employees will receive language training? If so, what are they?
3. Are second-language learning aptitude tests administered to employees eligible for language training in your institution? If so,
   1. In what cases are these tests administered?
   2. How are the results used?
4. Is language training incorporated into employee training programs? If so, how?
5. Are employees given information about language training? If so, what kind of information?
   1. Are new employees given specific information? If so, what information?
   2. Do the regions and head office use the same process to provide information to employees?
6. Do the regional offices have specific needs in terms of language training? If so, what are they?

Language training provided

7. What learning methods do employees have access to?
8. Who is responsible for choosing the learning methods employees can use? What factors are considered?
9. Can employees in your institution take their language training during work hours without having to make up the time?
10. How are language-training service providers chosen? What criteria are used in selecting service providers?

Language skills and retention

11. Do employees who are taking or have taken language training receive support or guidance to encourage them to use their second language on the job? If so, what type of support or guidance is provided?
12. Have any strategies been implemented to help employees retain their language skills following their language training?

Language training budget

13. Have you been keeping data on the budget for language training in your institution since the responsibility for language training was transferred to senior administrative officers of federal institutions in 2006? If so, do the data reflect the cost of:
    • service providers?
    • replacements for employees on training?
    • salaries of employees on training?
    • other?
14. What trends have you observed since 2006 regarding the proportion of your overall budget allocated for language training? Has the percentage decreased, increased or stayed the same?
15. Was your language training budget affected by the 2011 strategic and operational review or by the recent government cutbacks? If so, how? Has there been any particular impact in the regions?
16. Do you have any financial data to share with us?

Decentralization of responsibility and data collection

17. Has there been any positive or negative impact in your institution following the 2006 decentralization of responsibility for language training?
18. Since 2006, has your institution been keeping a record of the language training received by your employees (e.g., number of employees, hours of training, type of language training)? If so,
    1. Is this data gathered systematically?
    2. How far back does the data go?
    3. May we have access to the data?

Conclusion

19. Do you have any other comments about language training in your institution?

Introduction

The following survey is part of a descriptive study commissioned by the Commissioner of Official Languages to examine language training in federal institutions. The study involves documenting current processes and practices, as well as the challenges involved in language training. Participation in the study is voluntary, and all responses will be kept strictly confidential. No federal institutions will be identifiable in any data analyses. You may alternate between the English and French versions of the survey by clicking on the “English” or “French” button at the top right corner of each page, and then clicking on the “Go” or “Aller” button. To move forward or backward in the survey, click on “Next” or “Previous” at the bottom left corner of each page. At the end of each section of the questionnaire, space is provided to allow you to make any additional comments should you wish to do so. For more information on this survey, please write to: information.information@clo-ocol.gc.ca. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages thanks you.

Information about the institution

Question 1.
Please indicate the nature of your institution.

• • Department
  • Central agency
  • Administration or Council
  • Tribunal
  • Commission
  • Agency
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 2.
Please indicate the size of your institution in terms of its total number of employees, expressed as full-time equivalents (FTEs).

• • Fewer than 1,000
  • 1,000 to 4,999
  • 5,000 to 9,999
  • More than 10,000

Question 3.
Please indicate where your institution's headquarters are located.

• • National Capital Region (NCR)
  • Atlantic Region (NB, NS, PEI, NL)
  • Ontario (excluding the NCR)
  • Central Canada (SK, MB)
  • Western Region (BC, AB)
  • Quebec (excluding the NCR)
  • Northern Canada (NU, NWT, YK)

Question 4.
In which region(s) are your regional offices located? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • National Capital Region (NCR)
  • Atlantic Region (NB, NS, PEI, NL)
  • Ontario (excluding the NCR)
  • Central Canada (SK, MB)
  • Western Region (BC, AB)
  • Quebec (excluding the NCR)
  • Northern Canada (NU, NWT, YK)
  • Not applicable

If you would like to add other comments with respect to your institution, please use the space below:

Language training needs

Question 5.
How are language training needs determined within your institution? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Based on the obligation that employees meet the linguistic requirements of their position
  • According to operational requirements
  • Based on employees' wishes to take language training for career development
  • According to employee training plans
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 6.
Are specific criteria used to decide which employees will receive language training for career development purposes?

• • Yes
  • No
  • Not applicable

Question 6a.
What are the criteria used to decide which employees will receive language training for career development purposes? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Employee expresses an interest in learning the other official language
  • Employee has an aptitude for learning languages
  • Employee has applied for language training
  • Employee has management potential
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 7.
Is language training an integral part of employee career development programs?

• • Yes
  • No
  • Not applicable

Question 8.
Are employees given information about language training?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 8a.
What type of information about language training do employees receive? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • General information contained in the new employee orientation kit
  • Information on the kinds of language training offered
  • Information on retention tools and strategies used in the institution
  • Information on how to apply for language training
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 8b.
Who provides the information about language training to employees? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • The deputy minister
  • The official languages champion
  • Human Resources
  • The supervisor
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 8c.
Do the regions and Headquarters use the same process to disseminate information to employees?

• • Yes
  • No, please explain: ______________________
  • Not applicable

If you would like to add other comments with respect to your institution's language training needs, please use the space below:

Language training provided

Question 9.
Does your institution have a language training directive in place?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 9a.
Since what year does your institution have a language training directive in place?

Question 9b.
Have guidelines been developed for this directive?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 10.
Which learning methods do employees have access to? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • On-line training
  • Classroom training
  • In-house training
  • Private lessons
  • Part-time training
  • Intensive full-time training
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 11.
Who is responsible for choosing the learning methods used by employees who are receiving language training to meet the linguistic requirements of their positions? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Employee
  • Supervisor
  • Unit Manager
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 11a.
What factors are considered in choosing the learning methods? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Employee preferences
  • Budget
  • Workload
  • Employee special needs
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 12.
Who is responsible for choosing the learning methods used by employees who are receiving language training for career development purposes? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Employee
  • Supervisor
  • Unit Manager
  • Other, please specify: ______________________
  • Not applicable

Question 12a.
If you offer language training for career development purposes, what factors are considered in choosing the learning methods? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Employee preferences
  • Budget
  • Workload
  • Employee special needs
  • Other, please specify: ______________________
  • Not applicable

Question 13.
In your institution, can employees:

Question 14.
How are language training service providers chosen? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Standing offer with Public Works and Government Services Canada
  • Standing offer with your institution
  • Competitive process
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 14a.
Which criteria are used in selecting service providers? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Cost of service
  • Service provider's reputation for quality
  • Whether the service provider is pre-qualified by the Canada School of Public Service
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 15.
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:

If you would like to add other comments with respect to language training provided, please use the space below:

Language skills and retention

Question 16.
Do employees in language training generally receive the following types of encouragement?

• They are encouraged to seek opportunities to use their second language in performing their duties.
  • Yes, during language training only
  • Yes, after language training only
  • Yes, both during and after language training
  • No
  • Do not know
• They are encouraged to hold and/or participate actively in meetings in both official languages.
  • Yes, during language training only
  • Yes, after language training only
  • Yes, both during and after language training
  • No
  • Do not know
• To encourage second language retention, management creates opportunities for communication in both official languages.
  • Yes, during language training only
  • Yes, after language training only
  • Yes, both during and after language training
  • No
  • Do not know

Question 17.
Are strategies used to help employees retain what they have learned in their language training?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 17a.
What are the strategies used to help employees retain what they have learned in their language training? (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • Informal training sessions in the workplace
  • Employees are paired up so they can practise their second language
  • English/French days
  • Bilingual meetings
  • Language activities (English/French lunch)
  • Reminder from management about language training and retention services available on-line
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 18.
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:

If you would like to add other comments with respect to employees' language skills and retention, please use the space below:

Data collection and management

Question 19.
Does your institution have budgets for language training?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 20.
Have you been keeping data on budgets for language training in your institution since the responsibility for language training was transferred to senior administrative officers of federal institutions in 2006?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 20a.
Is the data on language training budgets in your institution gathered on: (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • costs related to service providers?
  • costs related to the replacement of employees in training?
  • costs related to the salaries of employees in training?
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 20b.
If the Office of the Commissioner conducts a subsequent study, would you be inclined to share this data?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 21.
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement: Language training budgets in my institution are sufficient to meet needs.

• • Completely agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Completely disagree
  • Do not know

Question 22.
What trends have you observed since 2006 with regard to the proportion of your institution's overall budget allocated for language training?

Question 23.
What trends have you observed since the 2011 strategic and operational review with regard to the proportion of your institution's overall budget allocated for language training?

Question 24.
Since the decentralization of responsibility for language training in 2006, has your institution been keeping a record of the language training received by your employees?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 24a.
Do you keep data on: (Please check all applicable responses.)

• • The number of employees who received language training?
  • The total number of training sessions taken?
  • The number of training sessions per employee?
  • the number of hours in language training per employee?
  • The number of training sessions taken to meet the linguistic requirements of positions?
  • The number of training sessions taken for the purposes of career development?
  • The number of training sessions taken, by learning method?
  • Other, please specify: ______________________

Question 24b.
Is the data on the language training received by your employees gathered systematically?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 24c.
In what year did you start collecting the data?

Question 24d.
If the Office of the Commissioner conducts a subsequent study, would you be inclined to share this data?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 25.
Does your institution have staff dedicated to managing language training?

• • Yes
  • No

Question 25a.
Since what year does your institution have staff dedicated to managing language training?

Question 25b.
How many employees, expressed as full-time equivalents (FTEs), are dedicated to managing language training?

Question 26.
Do you have anything you would like to add, or any challenges or best practices you would like to share?