canadian
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
High failure rate calls for a rethinking of the Canada citizenship test
29/11/2010 12:30:00 PM
by Sameer Vasta
Failure rates on the national citizenship test are soaring. Maybe it's time to look at the kind of questions we ask on that test, and what purpose it serves.
After new rules and a new test format were introduced in March of this year, failure rates for the citizenship test jumped from 8-9% to almost 30%, putting new and added pressure on citizenship judges across the country. Immigrants who fail the test are referred to a citizenship judge to plead their case for citizenship, and the higher failure rates are putting stress on the system.
A new test and new rules introduced last month hopes to reduce the amount of people who fail the citizenship exam, but immigration officials still believe that the failure rate will be higher than it was prior to the changes earlier this year.
(You can see the study guide for the current test on the Discover Canada website, or take sample questions from the test on the Richmond Public Library site.)
The citizenship test can be a harrowing experience for immigrants. My parents, who had been living and working in Canada for several years as permanent residents before applying for citizenship, remember trying to memorize facts from a booklet that most of their Canadian-born friends didn't even know. In order to pass the test, they memorized facts like what kind of mark to make on a federal election ballot that didn't really give them a better understanding of Canada, especially after living, working, and raising their family here for several years before taking the test.
They took time off of work, studied hard, and passed the test. The whole family became Canadian citizens, and we couldn't be prouder to be part of the citizenry of this country. But it wasn't a test that made us feel Canadian. It was being surrounded by people who embraced us and let us become part of the social fabric of our city and accepted us as friends and colleagues and neighbours.
We became citizens after four years of continuous residency in this country; we became citizens after learning first-hand about the people around us, about the systems and structures in place that make Canada what it is, not after a test.
I'm not saying that the test should be abolished. On the contrary, after going through the long process (several years, in some cases) of trying to obtain Canadian citizenship, a basic understanding of the way the nation works is important. However, forcing people to memorize, by rote, a few key facts that many will forget right after the exam won't help people understand national history and culture.
Here's an idea: instead of testing people on the name of the seventh Canadian Prime Minister (Sir Wilfred Laurier) or the date when Nunavut became a territory (April 1 1999), the citizenship test should ask people about their experiences over the past (minimum) three years that they have been living in the country. It should ask them about how and where to access government services and historical information, about what kinds of civic and cultural events they have attended and why, about what parts of Canadian culture intrigues and fascinates them, and what they've done to explore those areas of interest.
A citizenship test should ask about what kinds of things hopeful citizens have learned about the country so far, and what they're most excited to learn as they continue to live in, and contribute to, Canadian society.
Making a more holistic test based on usable information and experience means that success won't be tied to how much someone was able to memorize; instead, a resident passes a citizenship test when they show that they care enough about the country to have learned, and want to continue to learn, about the great things Canada has to offer the world.(www.news.sympatico.ca)
