Government of New Brunswick

Department of Education

Home

Comments

Education Minister Kelly Lamrock wishes to thank all those who took time to submit comments.

Please note that we will only post submissions from people who have given us explicit consent to do so. We will not post the following:

Submissions received on-line that indicate "Not public" on the web form
Submissions sent direct by email, letter or fax which do not explicitly ask us to post their comments or which divulge personal information about third parties (in order to comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act)
Submissions that contain statements considered to be defamatory, libelous, hateful, or of a commercial nature.
Duplicate submissions

Please also note that because each submission must be reviewed in the context of the above, there will normally be a time lag of between 2-3 days between receiving a submission and posting it on the website.

As of 4:30 p.m. Friday, July 25, 2008, the French Second Language consultation has concluded. Any comments received after that time will not be posted, but will be brought to the Minister's attention.

Improving French Second Language Programming Within a Quality Education System(pdf)

Comments appear in the language received.

I have to say at this point that this forum and the associated timeline do not allow for a meaningful consultation. I concur with the Ombudsman's recomendation that the elimination of EFI be delayed to allow for a public engagement process as described by Mr. Richard.
It is clear that, based on email exchanges, that the intent to eliminate EFI was there before the commissioned Croll & Lee report was even submitted to the DoE and long before Mr. Lamrock announced the elimination of EFI on March 14.
Mr. Lamrock visited our school in St. Stephen soon after the Croll & Lee report was released to the public. I get quite upset when I remember how he told teachers, parents, and administrators that night how he was really struggling with the upcoming decision he had to make with regards to FSL instruction in New Brunswick. Little did I know that the fate of EFI had long been determined.
Given the bias and dishonesty associated with initial consultation period and decision of March 14, I have no faith in a consultation process with Mr. Lamrock and other top officials from the DoE at the helm. As Mr. Richard suggests, the services of a highly qualified consultant should be retained to carry out the consultation process which would conlude in time for the 2008-2009 school year.
It would give all parties involved the necessary time to get the facts right so that any decision would at least start from a common point of agreement.

The recommendations of the province's Ombudsman must be fulfilled for any real consultation to take place. If the Liberal government is unable to see this, I will express my full opinions later.

I will be writing a more extensive submission when I have had a chance to really research my thoughts on this matter, but I want to go on record immediately to say that I believe 100% that Premier Graham should immediately follow the recommendations of the Ombudsman, issued on June 18, 2008.

Clearly, there have been significant errors in judgement up to this point, and I feel that it would be a major disservice to children and schools to try to rush this through at this time.

Any changes that are ultimately implemented need to be based on sound research and fair evaluation - not based on what is politically expedient.

I will learn more and input ideas but it is clear that this current situation is past the point of return by Kelly Lamrock.

Should this consultation period not be modified, extended and be undertaken by an impartial committee, there will be no trust whatsoever in the education system.

I am ashamed by the actions of this government today.

Minister Lamrock,

My feelings about your changes to the French Immersion and Core French programs (thus the elimination of them), is that you are completely jumping the gun with them.

Are changes necessary for the programs, Yes? But, in the last couple of years or so a new program which has shown signs of significant improvement has been making the rounds. This program, the AIM program, which undertakes the use of signs for lettering in the French language has allowed children to show some excellent growth.

While I am not a direct observer of these improvements, I do know based on the excitement of both parents and the educators that are teaching them, who talk about the significant changes in these children since day 1 of the school year and it is a significant improvement. Simple sounding of letters, to complete sentences being spoken, often without prompting.

There are a few educators in the Core and Immersion programs who make it a rule to not speak anything other than French in the classroom during French class and although the initial attempts at this were hard to attain, the following months showed that this effort was paying off. While this is not the time of year to do this, you, yourself should go and view the students in this program and see for yourself, just how much improvement has been made in their vocabulary and understanding.

Perhaps delaying the change for a year is needed to allow for you to do this, but I would recommend regular visits to certain schools (say 1 per district) at 2 month intervals to see what kind of improvement children in these programs are showing.

Are changes needed in the way the language is taught? Absolutely! But, I would like to reiterate, that you need not rush change in, but see it through thoroughly. Eliminating one and replacing it with another is not the most effective model to use.

I am in no position to recommend a specific new idea, but I can tell you that using all types, Early French, Core French and Intensive French could all benefit all NBers. For those with an intellectual disability, perhaps the AIM program's signs could be a trigger which might help them get some grasp of the language.

The saying, "Look before you leap" is what most comes to mind when seeing what you need to do. You didn't do this in your original plan, but now is the time to focus on the individuals any changes would affect. Some French in the early grades does need to be retained and for the benefit of all NBers, perhaps a language testing every 3 years to see their progress may be another idea to use.

There are many problems plaguing the education system in New Brunswick, and clearly there is no one solution that will please everyone, but it seems to me that there is a lot of money going to committees and studies instead of being used for resources for the children.

One problem that I am hearing is that our children are coming out of the system without the skills in the "fundamental" subjects. I think a lot of people are unaware that children are no longer held back if they "fail" a grade, and maybe holding kids back won't help them, but certainly pushing them through is not going to help them either. If you can't grasp basic concepts, how are you expected to understand more advanced material? Could this be the reason for low test scores? This is where additional support resources are needed. Teachers need to be viewed as a source of information and guidance and not as babysitters and drill sergeants. If a child is unable to be part of a class without disrupting his or her peers on a regular basis, then that child should have an assistant or interventionist working with them to give them the attention that they need. It is not the role of the teacher to ensure that a child learns. It is the responsibility of the parent to make sure that their child is doing their work. Teachers should have additional resources for those that require them, but the onus should be on parents to make sure their child is doing their work as expected. Every child has a right to be there, but no child has the right to take away from the other children. Resources need to be spent on supervision and intervention.

Kids will learn what they are exposed to, especially at a very young age. If they live in an English household, they pick up English, if they live in a French household they learn French. Likewise if they are immersed in sports, they develop sports skills; books develop literacy skills. It puzzles me why only English, math and science are considered to be "fundamental" when there is so much interest and emphasis put on second language skills, fine arts and physical education. I feel there should be six "fundamental" courses available to all children, of which English, math and science may be taught in English, and French, fine arts and physical education, courses with less reading and writing involved, can be taught in French. French should focus more on verbal ability and culture, with films, activities and songs initially, and literature and grammar later on. I believe that this should start from grade one. If all children are offered the same six "fundamental" courses, that would eliminate the whole idea of streaming and class composition issues. Kindergarten should be reserved for learning the basic skills required entering grade one. This leads me to another issue, scissors.

One thing that I hear often is that kids need to work on using scissors before they go to kindergarten; nevermind that they don't know their alphabet, can't read basic sentences and don't know their numbers. I'm confident that by third grade a child will have a pretty good grasp on how to use scissors with very little instruction. I am less confident, however, that a child will have as good a grasp on reading with as little instruction at that same age. Let the scissors go, and focus on what is important.

The school day is very short. Otherwise put, there are only so many hours in a day. If all of these hours are required to learn the "fundamental" subjects, wouldn't adding fine arts and physical education take away from that? If the school day as it stands is used for the "fundamental" classes, couldn't additional time be tacked on the end of the day to accommodate the fine arts and physical education? Kids naturally have more energy earlier in the day, as do most adults, but classes that are more "fun" should still engage them at any time of day.

There are also a few other ideas that I will toss out there. Kids are naturally drawn to computers; this should be capitalized on. Could a standard curriculum not be developed to aid in teaching certain core subjects? This could also help teachers, whose French skills aren't quite up to the standard, teach the required material. It could also be used to assist teachers in evaluating and providing feedback to students and parents. Exchange programs for teachers with schools in French communities would be an excellent way to improve the French language skills of FSL teachers. Bring in French speaking teachers temporarily, while allowing the local teachers to acquire better French language skills abroad, to help them to stay and teach in their own community, thereby reducing the need to try to retain permanent French first language teachers who do not want to stay in predominantly English rural communities. The use of the PRS "clickers" could also provide feedback to the teachers, thus assisting them to better meet the needs of struggling students. Annual province wide school fundraisers could be put in place to help offset the cost of technology. Partnerships with other governmental departments at all levels to provide FSL festivals and events would be a plus as well, picnics, movie night, plays, field trips to local French/Acadian destinations, exchange trips with local French schools, volunteer opportunities with French first language institutions for credit, etc. Volunteer groups could be established for parents willing to help out in classroom management, where teachers give members some brief training or guidance on how they can help out in the classroom.

To sum up, the Department of Education has to realize that not every child will be a scholar, and not every child will be a labourer, but society needs both, and both groups require and deserve a basic education. Once the basics have been grasped, streaming can and should occur to carry our children to their intended destination. This does not mean that children should be deprived of their right to learn a second language, but some groups are going to require more fine arts, other groups are going to require more technical skills, and yet other groups are going to need to focus on basic life skills. One size does not fit all, but in the beginning, one size should fit most, exceptions should be rare, not the norm.

Mr. Lamrock,

I applaud your department's willingness to make a change to benefit all children in New Brunswick. However you have not been open with the citizen's to allow their input into this.

Up until now, the only voice heard in the media are those pro-EFI. There are fundamental weaknesses in both the immersion and core French programs as they stand today. Those that are pro-EFI seem blind to this and are only concerned about losing the choice to enroll their children in what is seen as an "elite" program.

I belive that the system needs change. The concerns I have with your Intensive French proposal are the fact that it is "mandatory". You are also taking the choice away from parents to choose to have our children instructed in English. In trying to statisfy the "francophone needs", you are forcing anglophones to be instructed in french.

It also does not seem to take into consideration the effect it could have on children with special needs or children already struggling with school, this needs to be considered as it will not only affect these children but also the children who will be in the classroom with them.

If you are going to make it "mandatory" to do the intensive French program, I feel that throwing a child into this without prior French instruction could be setting the program up to fail as you will have many children that absolutely hate it and they will feel unsuccessful in it and choose not to continue in the immersion stream. If this is the way things will go, I feel that to allow for the most success of the intensive program, children should continue to be instructed one period a day in French in grade 1-4 to give them a base to start out on with the intensive french program

Thank you for hearing our comments.

I am a graduate of LFI and luckily I can read & write in French/English. However, I also believe that if you don't use it, you will loose it. Since I live in an Anglophone community, I am beginning to loose it.

My daughter is an EFI dropout (she is of Acadian descent and has a French name). So I have a bit of experience on both sides of the fence. We had to take her out of EFI in grade 4. Unfortunately, she also had to take the new pilot program for Enhanced French in grade 5. She was not very happy to "do grade one work" again. I even received a few calls from school, for the first time ever, as she was very understandably bored with the repetition. Since she was the sole child in that situation there was nothing that could be done.

I do still however feel that my daughter was "cheated" out of 5 months of her education due to this unique situation. (That along with being nearly last in every bar graph in the report worry me.) I hope that if EFI / EEI continue, that a plan is put in place for students that already had prior experience in the other language for the grade 5 level. Also she had quite a shock moving from a very small class to a the largest in the school with the addition of an autistic child who was verbally and physically abusive. So I agree 100% to the comments about the two tiered system. My daughter's experience with EFI was terrible.

I agree with the scientists' findings that it is best to teach as early as possible. However, I also think that learning a new language requires a certain amount of maturity and discipline/good study habits. The mother tongue should come first. I am therefore in support the decision to delay the offering until grade 6. That also would help with staffing & resources as that seems to be an issue as well.

In looking over the other comments, every situation is very unique. I personnaly would think it best if the CHOICE was given whether or not an individual wants to learn another language at all. If the desire is not there, the learning is more difficult. How would any of you readers like to be told you must learn German or some other foreign language? Some might feel that it is an infringement on our rights to be forced to learn a new language/culture. Reading, writing, math, etc are all life skills. Is learning a 2nd language? Some personality types excel with linguistics, some don't. For those that don't do well, and want to opt out of a 2nd language program completely, what options do they have? Things have changed in the classrooms dramatically over the years, kids are graduating that can't read. Please do whatever it takes to keep the priorities straigt and put our kids first.

Thank you for the opportunity to input and I hope our kids can come first! Good Luck!

I am a high school FI mathematics teacher. I have taught both LFI and EFI as well as mathematics in English from grades 9 to 11.

I truly believe that the process the government used to reach this decision was biased. Less than two years before this most recent review was in place, the FSL department of UNB had reviewed the FSL program in New Brunswick and their conclusions included the statement that the EFI program is the most effective program for students to learn French as a second language in this province.

As a teacher with 19 years of experience, I was appalled to hear that the government was considering cancelling EFI. In the country's only bilingual province, how can we, in good conscience, cancel the program that is producing the students with the highest French proficiency rating? It just doesn't make sense.

Cutting the Core French program from grades 1 to 4 is also unfathomable. Do we really want none of our province's children to be able to speak or to understand French at all until they are in Grade 5? This Core program, although it does not produce fluent speakers of French, does foster a love of the language and the joy of learning an official language of our province. These positive attitudes toward French are crucial during these beginning years and the positive results of the Intensive French program have come after four years of Core French. How do we know that Intensive French will be effective when students have learned no French before Grade 5? The fact is that we simply don't know. Do we really want to wait five years to find out that we have made a mistake? More research needs to be done before we make a decision that will seriously affect every anglophone student in New Brunswick?

I have three children who are enrolled in the Early French Immersion program. If EFI were not offered in New Brunswick, I would have returned to Nova Scotia (my home province) and enrolled them in school there. I'm sure many other parents feel the same way and already I am hearing about families who are moving away for this reason. It just doesn't make sense.

I would also like to mention the McKay report on inclusion. In this report, Mr. McKay made over 100 recommendations to improve the current system. All teachers in New Brunswick will tell you that our policy on inclusion has had a serious impact on class composition and on the results of our provincial, national and international test scores. We are, in fact, the only province that has full inclusion. After the publication of this report, why didn't the government make drastic changes to the inclusion policy?

I agree that French Immersion programs have caused a streaming effect in our schools but getting rid of the most effective program just doesn't make sense. Why not provide resources to support the classes which are affected? It just doesn't make sense.

Last year, I graduated with a Master's in Education. I wrote a thesis entitled "Addressing Linguistic Issues in Late French Immersion mathematics". The research component of this thesis has taught me the importance of research-based decision making in the education system. This decision is not based on research. It is based on the opinions of a select few. The government collected the information that supported its opinion and then made the decision it had planned on making in the first place.

One possible direction for research is to study school districts in our province where French Immersion programs are not offered. If not offering French Immersion prevents streaming and this lack of streaming truly has a beneficial effect on student achievement, then those districts should, in theory have the highest assessment results in the province. This is, in fact, not the case. In fact, the anglophone school districts which offer EFI are the districts with the highest assessment results in the province. If this FSL review were truly research based, this information should have been included in the review. But it wasn't. Why? Because the government had already made its decision before the review was even begun. Why was the FSL department of UNB not included in this review? Because the members of that department are knowledgable about this topic and the government did not want to hear their opinion. In fact, they already knew their opinion and it didn't match with the goals of the review - which was to get rid of EFI at all costs.

I strongly hope that the government will comply with the decision to quash their original decision and consider a much more in-depth, objective, impartial and research-based review of the FSL programs in New Brunswick and that any future decisions regarding the education of our children will be truly in the best interests of all students.

Compared to provinces like Alberta and Ontatio, New Brunswick is at disadvantage socioecnomically but one thing that we have going for us is our strong FSL programs. Let's not take away the one thing that sets us apart and above all other provinces.

I have been amazed at the publicity that this decision has received. I have been involved with education for 18 years and despite the numerous changes that have occured during this time I cannot recall any greater public outcry. For example: does anyone remember when the government of the day decided to take all trades programs out of the high schools. Stop and thing what the the trades do for our economy. I read many posts on how people have felt that the immersion program helped them get a job. How many jobs did we lose when we took these programs out. Yet no one really cared. Look at Leo Hayes High School. The second largest high school in the province and it does not have the traditional wood/metal/automotive shops. The public said nothing during the planning stages. What about the removal of phys ed/art/music in elemnetary schools (which are finally being reimplemented...I wonder why???). The list goes on, yet not much media coverage.
The point that I am trying to make is what is driving the controversy behind this campaign? I can't help but wonder if there are some political forces at work. I have heard numerous comparisons about children in Europe and how they learn multiple languages, so why can't we offer that here. It is not that simple. If you were tyo compare educational systems they are quite different. It would like saying an engine is an engine, so if one works in one car then it will work in another...trust me it is not quite that simple. Neither is second language training, and we must remember that this is what we are talking about...French as a second language. I support the minister in his attempt in trying to make a level playing field for all anglophone students in the province. No haves and have nots, rather an intensive second language program for all students. Which I feel will benefit all students

I have two children in elementary school (french immersion) and would like to know exactly what "grandfathering" means. I am concerned that the teachers and students will lose interest and move on to integrate into the new FSL program. Eleven years is a long time to put resources into an outdated system.
If I decide to switch my children to English as soon as possible will I even be able to do so, and if so, will they receive the art, music etc enrichment? I assume not. Would it be a good idea to switch them into the new program in grade 5?
I have read the original proposal and discussion paper but do not feel adequately informed on the new system and the opportunities it presents for my children.

Mr. Lamrock,

I have no faith in your proposal to replace EFI with Intensive French Immersion.

EFI is not for all, but does work for many, even you have acknowledged that. So I ask why or how you can in good conscience eliminate this program.

You have shown little willingness to discuss this matter, absolulety no willingness to compromise and very little regard for parent's true feelings. It is for these reasons and many more that I feel this will likely fall on deaf ears when I ask you to reinstate the EFI program. So I ask myself, why bother even write?

ALL, FSL programs need to be fixed, please consider the following:

-Consult with teachers, work with them to fix the problems as they are the ones who witness the shortcomings of the FSL programs
-Implement French Kindergarten in some form.
-Increase resources available to parents to assist their children with French, such as a help-line for English speaking parents.
-Increase class time and decrease PDD, our children are out of school way too much.

Do not eliminate EFI, improve it along with the other FSL programs.

You told the crowd in Moncton of record increases in education budget, it's time to put your money where your mouth is and fix the problems.

Please do the right thing and reinstate EFI.

To: The Minister of Education
Hon. Mr. Kelly Lamrock

I was shocked and appalled at the Minister's decision to scrap EFI in New Brunswick. If this decision stands it's ironic that the only Bilingual province in Canada will no longer offer a chance for our children to begin learning french at an age early enough to have a hope of becoming biligual enough to get a job. It seems the government wants to take our disturbing trend of training workers for other provinces and even countries to a new level.

I have a daughter who is currently in grade 1 EFI and she can already read and speak french much more efficiently than her mother who went through late immersion. I understand that there are problems with the Core english as well as the EFI programs--but try to FIX them instead of scrapping everything and using our children as guinea pigs. Mr. Lamrock, do you really want a whole generation of New Brunswickers to have to leave the province to find decent employment? I, for one, do not.

The most disturbing part of this decision was the lack of public input. If EFI isn't working for some kids--find out why. Give immersion taechers more resources to help more children succeed in the program. There are plenty of children with learning and behavioural issues who would be able to succeed in EFI if the resources were there to help them. The idea that lumping all the children together until grade 5 will eliminate streaming is ridiculous. You will just delay the streaming until they are older, at which time the children who can't handle the intensive french program will be aware they are being streamed. I don't believe your new "one size fits all" approach to educating our children is logical. Not all children are capable of, or some may not even want to participate in EFI--that's okay. What is wrong with keeping a better supported EFI as well as introducing Grade 5 Intensive French. For many of us EFI is working for our families and our best chance of producing bilingual children. And for those families whom the current programs don't work for-find out why-concentrate on making both programs the best they can be--and give the choice back to the parents and children. At the end of the day, Mr. Lamrock, isn't that your job and our right?

First of all I want to applaud the Education Minister for his actions to date. I have been a part of the education system for a few years now and have seen the good and the not so good side of Immersion. I think that the government is showing great courage and forsight in making the changes they have suggested. I have seen first hand the tremendous accomplishments that students taking Intensive French have achieved. I have seen students in an English class, take Intensive French for five months and be able to carry on a basic conversation in French. I have seen students after taking Intensive french for two years enroll in the Late Immersion program and meet with great success. The wonderful thing about have a late entry into Immersion is that the student can decide for themselves if they want to learn to be bilingual. When the student makes the decision on their own they have a great sense of impowerment because they are taking Immersion because they want to, not being told to in grade one. They enter the Immersion progam then with a solid background in English language Arts and can put more emphasis in learning the Second language. It is important for students to feel that they are all on a level playing field when they start their educational journey and the decisions by the Education Minister certainly levels the field and allows all to play to the best of their ability.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,

I am writing this letter in response to the new round of consultation into the future of French Immersion in this province. I am not a parent, nor do I have any intention of becoming one anytime soon. I am a twenty year old about to enter his third year at a New Brunswick university. I graduated from a large suburban high school in New Brunswick in 2006 with high honours and a French language certification of Intermediate Plus. I started Late French Immersion (LFI) in sixth grade and continued with it straight through to graduation. My sister has just completed grade 11 at the same suburban high school. She is in the Core English program.
Through my time in this province's public school system, and through observation of my sister, I have a few developed several concerns with the education system in the province. Some of these concerns you have promised to address with your reforms to the French Second Language (FSL) program. I have studied the report by James Croll and Patricia Lee and responses to it prepared by academics and parents' groups. I have tried to read every news item even mentioning the Department of Education in the months since the release of the report. I developed grave concerns about process by which these changes were being implemented, and I have only developed more of them since reading the decision of Justice McLellan; these I will address further below. For most of this letter, however, I want to contribute my experience, observation, and (admittedly inexpert) analysis.
The executive summary of the Croll-Lee Report charges the reports authors with, in their assessment of the FSL program, "identifying the best way forward to improving student achievement levels while at the same time addressing and/or eliminating any associated negative impacts on the overall system, as identified above (e.g. streaming/art/music/physical education)." I think the report's recommendations (which you proposed as the basis for your reform before Justice McLellan's decision) do not fully address these concerns. In some cases, they may even aggravate them.
When I entered LFI in the fall of 1999, it was with a goal to know both official languages of my province and country. It was also because I felt bored in the Core stream, that I was capable of taking up a new academic challenge; in essence, because I thought I was smart enough to go into LFI. As it turned out, I was up to challenge, earning honours and high honours through middle school and high school. It seemed that most others in Late Immersion were up to the challenge as well, as I distinctly remember that a substantial majority of honours students at my middle school were in LFI. I can't speak for any other LFI student, but I'll admit having a feeling of superiority of most of my core peers, a feeling that I was better than them. This feeling, for the most part, dissolved by ninth and tenth grades, when LFI, EFI, and Core students began to share classes. It's not a feeling I'm proud of, and I like to think I grew out of it because I matured over the years. Core, LFI, and EFI students rarely associated with each before high school, except for kids who were friends in their neighbourhoods or elementary schools.
My sister took a different path when she had to choose whether to enter LFI or remain in Core. She had slightly less academic success in elementary school, but was still one of the better students in her grade. She did not feel confident in her ability to be successful in Late Immersion. Also, many of her friends chose to remain in Core. Consequentially, so did my sister. Our entire family was surprised with what she found when she got there. Where she would have only been in the top third of her class in elementary school, she suddenly found herself as one of the top three or four in her class. This was not due to a substantial improvement in work and studies, though she was good enough to earn honours. It had more to do with the composition of her Core class. Her class was filled mostly with students who struggled with the curriculum in some way. An unfortunate few were troublemakers who would deliberately disrupt the class. Some probably had no business being in middle school, and still others showed little or no interest in learning. Rare was the true high achiever in the core class. Through middle school and well into high school, she and her Core classmates would rarely associate with LFI or EFI kids.
I have no idea what streaming is like at the elementary level, but I can personally assure you that it is terrible at the secondary level. After fifth grade, most of the high achieving students transfer from Core to LFI. The statistics gathered by Mr. Croll and Ms. Lee seem to confirm this. Quoting statistics from fifth grade mathematics assessments, found page 60 of the Croll-Lee Report, Core students had a mean score of 59.33% and EFI students scored on average 64.47%. Quoting statistics from eighth grade mathematics assessments, found on page 62 of the same report, EFI students showed a similar score to their fifth grade counterparts, 64.92% mean. LFI students, who were by definition Core students in fifth grade, had a remarkable mean score of 68.23%. Those students who remained in the Core stream had an equally remarkable mean result: 53.06%, down over six per cent from fifth grade results. There are flaws to the statistics Croll and Lee used. Students should have been tracked as they went through the school system by comparing those 2006-2007 eighth grade assessments to grade five assessments from 2003-2004.
The message, though, appears clear. Late Immersion causes substantial streaming at a time in children's lives that is chaotic enough, what with the onset of puberty. The recommendations of the Croll-Lee Report, if implemented, could create a true two-tier education system as the middle and high school level: the Immersion stream for the exceptionally bright, and the core stream for everyone else. I can also say without a doubt that LFI is seen as an enrichment program by many parents and students. The Ottawa-Carleton School Board in Ontario came to this conclusion and has begun phasing out Late Immersion in favour of Early Immersion (starting at Kindergarten) and Middle Immersion (beginning in grade four). If the recommendations of the Croll-Lee report are implemented, I would bet that streaming will become more substantial and more obvious in sixth grade and beyond. If the government wanted to eliminate streaming entirely, it would eliminate French Immersion altogether. Since that, though, would make it practically impossible for the province to reach its bilingual student goal of 70%, I would suggest a good, long look at a Middle Immersion program, preferably (but not necessarily) alongside Early Immersion. If it works in other jurisdictions, there's no reason to believe it couldn't work here.
Additionally, the addition of Intensive French in fifth grade and an enriched core program from sixth grade on are positive steps in the right direction. These steps should not come, though, at the expense of eliminating French classes entirely between grades one and four. No other area in the New Brunswick school system (math, English, social studies, science, etc.) throws its students into the heart of the subject without having a decent background in it. It is these early Core classes that help foster the love of French and a desire to learn more, to become bilingual. For my part, I doubt I would have had the desire to enter LFI without those early years of core. Intensive French has also never been piloted without the Core component, making me wary about its use in such circumstances. If you must make one change to FSL instruction in New Brunswick, implement Intensive French and the enriched Core program, but keep French in schools from grades one to four. You can teach French while learning the rules of soccer or colours of paint, but you must keep early Core French instruction in schools. I have faith that you will see results.
At the high school level, several changes can be made to improve FSL instruction. I think it is vital that Immersion students take one course in French every semester they are in high school. In my last two years of high school, I took all the French courses I could: 1 semester each of LFI Language Arts 11 and 12 and Modern History 11. There were no other upper year French courses offered in high school. When I took LFI Language Arts 12 in second semester of grade 12, it took me about a month to get fully back into the routine of speaking French in class. This is because I did not take any courses in French in first semester of grade 12. I feel that with a French class in that term I could have achieved a Superior proficiency on my oral assessment. The extra course in French could be a history course, such as Canadian History, and equivalent classes should also be mandatory in the Core program and Francophone system. Such French language assessments should also be compulsory for all high school students so that we may have a true gauge of how the program is working. I would also suggest finding ways to promote French language universities and colleges in high schools. Some students drop out of immersion to take courses more relevant to post-secondary opportunities, but they could be persuaded to stay in the program if they can use it to have more educational choice after graduating high school.
That being said, changes to the way this province's FSL programs alone will not properly address problems in English, science, and mathematics. To use a car analogy, fixing your transmission does not mean that you have fixed your engine, steering, or brakes. Also, every province with higher literacy rates and test scores has Early French Immersion. One thing I've noticed in several discussions I've had over this issue was the issue of fundamental flaws in the province's education system; not flaws caused by the FSL, mind you, but structural flaws in the system as a whole. I do not believe any changes made to FSL will have a serious impact on solving literacy problems, low test scores in math and science, or class composition. Additionally, how exactly are changes to FSL going to impact literacy, testing, and class composition in New Brunswick's Francophone school system? I think if you are serious about solving these issues, you need to undertake a review of the entire Department of Education. An expert with no ties to this or any other New Brunswick government should make this review. This expert would not have any sacred cows (including all FSL programs and Inclusion), but would be free to make whatever recommendations deemed necessary to help the children of this province learn. New Brunswick students are no different from students in Alberta or Nova Scotia. Some of our kids are among the brightest in the country; Reach for the Top teams from Kennebecasis Valley and Oromocto were national semifinalists this year, bested only by a pair of Ontario schools. I think only an overhaul of the whole education system will help them reach their full potential.
There is one very easy change you can make to broad educational policy to help ensure that the education system can equip all students with essential reading, mathematical, and scientific skills: ban "social promotion." "Social promotion" advances students through the grade levels with the rest of their social peers, regardless of whether or not they have achieved enough to earn that promotion. Children should not be advancing to high school without proper literacy or numeracy skills, much less graduating. These problems can and should be identified before high school, and students should be made to repeat grades until they get it right. This seems, to me at least, to be common sense. In business, people are promoted on the basis of competency, not on the basis of anyone's feelings. Grade schools should apply the same principle.
Another idea I would propose to help eliminate the streaming problem is mixed classes. There are certain subjects that are not taught in French to Immersion students, such as shop, home economics, art, music, and, of course, English language arts. My idea is for those classes (especially at the middle school level) to have a mix of Immersion and Core students, preferably with every class at a school having a similar ratio of Immersion and Core students. This idea would see these students learn in a similar environment, as Immersion and Core students would learn together. I think this could go a long way towards eliminating streaming, at least with regards to English literacy. It may also help combat the mental segregation that currently exists in schools, with Core and Immersion students not really having much to do with each other on the playground. I realize the logistics of this plan would probably be terrible. I'm not sure how to address that, but am making what I believe to be a logical suggestion. I also realize this idea may be unprecedented, to which I point out that the Croll-Lee Report's suggestion that French classes between grades one and four be eliminated is also unprecedented. If you are willing to give that recommendation such serious consideration, this idea deserves more than a passing glance.
I also want to address concerns you have about increasing enrichment and physical activity in schools. First, I do not understand how FSL instruction, enrichment, and physical activity are so closely linked beyond the fact that the education system is in some way responsible for all three. It seems to me that changing the FSL program to enrich exceptional students could only lead to an increase in streaming, contrary to your overall goal for the system. One way to give kids more enrichment is to introduce more enrichment programs into both of this province's school systems (Anglophone and Francophone). There were two programs I was part of in Elementary school I found particularly effective. One was called Wednesday Wizards, and it took part during the school year. The other was Enrichment Camp, a kind of day-camp program that took place over the summer. Both taught students more about subjects they were interested in or excelled at, such as math, astronomy, the human body, etc. They were fun programs, and Enrichment Camp was particularly popular. Both programs, sadly, are now defunct, the victims of government funding cuts. Restoring and expanding funding for these programs would help increase enrichment in this province.
In first grade, I was identified as having an exceptional aptitude for mathematics and was started on an independent and advanced math program. I continued with this program until the end of grade two, when the province overhauled the elementary math curricula. My teachers still taught me more difficult mathematical concepts (mostly to keep me occupied in math class) and I was eventually given an hour a week of time with a resource teacher to learn still more advanced concepts. This time was discontinued at the end of grade four, when the resource teacher retired. Still, by the end of fifth grade, my math skills were judged to be at a ninth grade level. This enrichment did not continue in middle school, when I entered Late Immersion. Based on my experience, I have another proposal to make with regards to enrichment. Allow teachers to identify students who are particularly bright and can work somewhat independently in a particular subject. Put those students on an advanced curriculum for that subject, and allow them to work at their own pace. Put resources in place to continue that advanced curriculum in middle and high school, even if the student goes into immersion. Have Immersion students continue on the curriculum in English if need be; if they are that bright, they will recognize the concepts in French as well once they learn the proper terms. This should also help bright students stay engaged in school.
On the subject of physical fitness, I would suggest expanding recesses in elementary and middle schools, as well as making physical education compulsory until at least grade ten. The former change would give kids more time for unstructured physical activity, such as playground activity or pick-up soccer. The latter change would make physical education a more important part of the high school curriculum. I would also suggest the idea of compulsory intramurals in middle school and quite possibly elementary school as well. Intramurals are fun activities that teach children the rules of games and how to play them, as well as promoting fitness, teamwork, and sportsmanship. Expanding their role in schools could not have much negative effect. The Department of Education could also work with the New Brunswick Interscholastic Athletic Association (NBIAA) to develop policies meant to expand participation in organized interscholastic sports. This may include getting the NBIAA to allow junior championships in a wider variety of sports and asking them to consider sponsoring Middle School Championships.
Another concern that has been addressed by the report (if not by many of its critics) is the access to immersion of any kind at smaller, rural schools. If numbers do not warrant an immersion program at a particular school, parents would be given the option to transfer their children to a school where Immersion is offered. If several schools in an area do not have the numbers to offer Immersion but the total of interested students at those schools combined do, than one or more centrally located schools (depending on enrollment) should be granted an Immersion program and should accept students from the area. I realize parents may not like this idea. The proposed axing of Early French Immersion at Sussex Corner Elementary School in Spring 2007 and busing of those students to Sussex Elementary was meant with so much parental outcry, the school district reversed its decision. People may also have concerns over whether this is a way of segregating Immersion students, and those concerns would be valid to a certain extent. It is, however, the only way I can see access to FSL programs and any Immersion program (Early, Middle, or Late) being truly equal in all areas of the province.
One issue raised in the report that could have been examined more carefully by Mr. Croll and Ms. Lee involves qualified teachers. They heard from superintendents, education directors, and District FSL specialists indicate that they have had to hire most of their teachers from Nova Scotia or Maine because New Brunswick's universities were not doing an adequate job in preparing prospective teachers for the classrooms. They find UNB graduates in particular to be very deficient. I'll take a few choice quotes from the Croll-Lee Report to back up my statement: ".UNB graduates are sometimes not qualified;" " UNB graduates do not have good interviews or resumes, not learning the language, and lack teacher training;" "not (hiring) from UNB anymore;" and "UNB- they are not learning the language and lack teacher training." Education graduates from the province's flagship university should not be unqualified to teach in this province. I think these comments reveal severe flaws in the way UNB teaches education. I'm not sure what department this would fall under: yours or the Department of Post-Secondary Education. Whoever is responsible for this provincial embarrassment must take the initiative to fix it. UNB graduates should have enough of the right training to earn teaching jobs on merit, at least as many as graduates of the University of Maine can.
I now must discuss the issue that has been dogging me since your initial decision on FSL in New Brunswick was made, and one I have thought about even more since Justice McLellan's ruling quashing that decision. That issue is the decision process. Justice McLellan ruled that the two-week turnaround between the Croll-Lee Report's release and your adoption of the recommendations contradicted your earlier promises to hold a full debate on the report before moving forward and was against the spirit of the report's own terms of reference, which required your response to the report "within two months of receipt." He also chastised your department for not being as clear and forthright as you ought to have in press releases outlining the report's recommendations and your (now quashed) acceptance of them. He called the process "unfair and unreasonable." His quashing of your decision and your subsequent announcement of six weeks of public consultation brings to the present. It is if your decision never happened, which means EFI is still offered in this province. You have also been asked to discount "any expectations, consequences or possible waste caused by the March decision that has been quashed."
If, on August 5, you again decide to fully implement the recommendations of the Croll-Lee Report, you risk inspiring the ire of many parents who want their children accepted into grade one Early Immersion this September. Those parents, from what I've been able to glean off discussion boards, may be prompted to file a second court case, claiming that the decision leaves you in contempt of Justice McLellan's ruling. This is all purely hypothetical, and I have no idea whether or not such a case could succeed. What I do know is that such a case will drag this mess into the 2008-2009 school year and could even affect the implementation of whatever decision you make. There may even be a chance (however remote) that such a case could disrupt the entire school year. A decision of FSL education must also be made slowly and soberly, and changes to the system must me made carefully and correctly. It is for these reasons I implore you to refrain from implementing your decision until the 2009-2010 school year. To use a car racing analogy, the goal may be to reach the finish line as quickly as possible, but if you drive your car too fast you will crash out. Crashing out the FSL program is not a risk I want you to take.
Staying with that car racing analogy, it is not enough for your car to be fast and your driving to be careful. You're car must also be made of parts that can last the whole race. Nobody has ever one an auto race after his engine or gearbox fries halfway through. I bring that up because I believe the Croll-Lee Report itself is seriously flawed and, to judge by the changes you initially ordered and your comments ever since, you want to base your changes to the FSL program heavily (if not entirely) on that report. I cannot think of any academic who has accepted in full the analysis and recommendations of the report. Every language development expert who has come on record about the reports recommendations has opposed it. It could be that Mr. Croll and Ms. Lee are visionaries with regard to second language education, but it appears much more likely that they are not. In the face of such academic criticism, especially considering your experience as a university lecturer, I fail to comprehend how you can base such revolutionary changes to the FSL program on this document and expect them to have your desired results.
On the point of academic criticism, I notice you have been peppering your defense of the Croll-Lee Report with quotes from other reports and experts. These reports have recommended changes diametrically opposed to the Croll-Lee recommendations, and those experts object both to its recommendations and your taking of their quotes out of context. This, I feel, serves to highlight the way you have conducted yourself over the course of this debate. You could have listened to your critics' concerns, taken note, and modified your plan in response to the criticism, or you might have even just paid lip service to them. Instead, you have been confrontational throughout, calling opponents, among other things, "elitist" and "un-Christian." You have answered criticisms of substance, not with substantive responses, but with inflated and inflammatory rhetoric. You have often acted, I feel, misleadingly, condescendingly, and hypocritically and abused the process in making your initial decision, if I am to take the judge's decision at face value. I think you have lost the trust of many people, including myself, to make a decision on this matter, and I think many of those same people, again including myself, are beginning to lose trust in the Department of Education as a result. I believe you should resign as Minister of Education as soon as possible so that more people on both sides of this issue can have faith in whatever policy decision is made. This decision will have a major impact on thousands of kids who will be entering the system in the coming years, and it's important such a decision has as full a public trust as possible. Even if the decision reached in August is the same as the one reached in March, it will be more widely accepted if someone else makes it.
I apologize for the lengthy and somewhat rambling nature of this letter, but I have given this issue much thought in the weeks and months since the Croll-Lee Report's release and believe that my voice, as a product of the New Brunswick education system, is worth as much as any other. I also could not resist the invitation in your discussion paper for ideas on how to make the system better. I know that I am not an expert in any field, and you'll probably treat my ideas as such. Some of them may have already been discussed in your department and rejected; I would not know. I'd like to conclude by saying that I want solid statistical proof outside the Croll-Lee Report that such any changes to the FSL program will improve literacy rates while not diminishing the rate of French Language proficiency in students. If these changes are not proven to improve the system, I will find another province to settle down and raise a family. Thank you again for the opportunity to present my thoughts.