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.

The results of this study prove conclusively what we have suspected all along. Early immersion, and the trumped up reports about it we've heard for years. The benefits graduates would behold in the future for enrolling in such training, we were told, have amounted to dismal failures at best. Further, if an examination of these reports were conducted with a shred of honesty, we'd most likely discover they were carried out and commissioned by the very French advocates themselves...after all, they want the entire province to believe this is really working!

So, what do all the numbers, graphs, and statistical reports really prove? Lets put the cultural aspect aside for just a moment and be completely honest about early French immersion folks...the numbers speak for themselves, and it isn't pretty! The harsh reality surrounding present day Francophone advocates, is this public report that exposes the failures of the present system for what they are...and the truth hurts! Now that the Liberal government is proposing to try a different approach with our hard earned taxpayers dollars, the supporters of early immersion are crying foul. This is not the time to try and preserve the French culture and heritage at any cost to students or taxpayers...that book has already been written, and nobody is buying it!

If you examine the very foundation of French language training for what it is, the entire scope of ideals and principals built around French immersion programs generally, are that of preserving a culture...period! French Second Language training and it's advocates never intended to be the catalyst for preparing English New Brunswick on the essence of equality in culture; education; or fairness in the job market. Proof of this can be found in the everyday workings of government, both provincially and federally. Almost all of the job opportunities that are currently offered by government agencies require bilingualism as part of their criteria, regardless of what area in the province. Then, if you're lucky enough to survive the initial screening process with an English surname, who conducts the interviews? A Francophone! Will your French immersion training come to your rescue? We certainly hope so...that's one of the fundamental reasons you elected to put your son or daughter in the program to begin with. But, the real question remains..."How will you stand up against another equally qualified Francophone applying for the same job"? The stark reality, is the system we have in place is flawed. There's too many loop holes for bias in an "equal opportunity"; bi-lingual job marketplace.

Another case in point...if the community you live in has an 8% total population of French speaking people residing within (such is our case), where will the opportunities present themselves to utilize French immersion training? If you don't "you it" you "lose it"...especially if the "program graduate" has two English speaking parents. I'm all for cultural diversity and learning about a second language, but have we all forgotten the working language of this province, as well as our entire country, is English?? If we're going to make exceptions to that fact in this province, then we must make the same provisions for the other ethnic groups that live among us, such as our First Nation peoples, who consequently, were here before everyone else! What happened to the notion of grounding each and every student with the basics of reading; writing; and mathematics in their "mother tongue" first? Common sense would surely dictate if you can't master the basic fundamentals in your first language, what would a second language yield?

With the embarrassing results these educational reports offer up, one has to wonder what motivates individuals continuing to embark on these futile efforts? One thing is for certain...if we continue to pursue support for FSL in it's current state, the reality will be a throng of future graduates that can speak neither English or French with any degree of fluency (Fringlish). The question we should be asking ourselves: "As parents, is it reasonable and responsible to continue supporting the current FSL training program for our children; one that has placed financial deficits on us as taxpayers, while creating the illusion of bilingualism in our graduates by the slimmest of margins?" The time for change is now! We have nothing to lose except a few more jobs!

First I would like to describe my situation, and then my comments.
I am an Anglophone parent with 2 children, and I have lived in many parts of Canada. I know a little French, but do not consider my self fluent at all.

Of my 2 children, the older one is currently finishing Grade 1, and is not in Immersion.

I value the bilingualism of Canada and New Brunswick, and would love to see everyone in this country bilingual - I believe knowing a second language provides for many opportunities. I believe our school system IS the place to do this. My older child likes her 'core' French classes and I am amazed at the amount of French she knows. We did not choose Immersion because we wanted to make sure a second language was not a barrier to other learning. (i.e. If she has trouble in math, we want to make sure it is not a language barrier) I am happy she is learning French, and do not want to see this taken away.

I took French in public school, but it was taught with an emphasis on grammar and vocabulary memorization. I would prefer to see a focus on conversation before reading and writing are stressed. I think it would help make French more fun, and help to reach the goal of learning to converse.

I do not agree with one Immersion year in Grade 5 - I think it would turn students off the language if they had little exposure to it, and then were consumed by it.

I understand the 'streaming' argument, however I think by altering French language instruction, one is not actually dealing with the streaming problem, just removing the symptom.

I do not believe the system is perfect, but I do not think the proposed changes will make it better.
Thank you.

My youngest daughter was registered to begin EFI in September 2008. I am strongly opposed to the possible elimination of EFI in New Brunswick. Below average test scores in our province have nothing to do with EFI. Alternative plans to improve overall public education (anglophone sector), while retaining EFI, have been presented. The Minister has so far chosen to ignore them, but should not pretend that they do not exist. It is now acknowledged that the Croll/Lee analysis was incorrect. Their recommendations are asking for a huge leap of faith into the unknown.

Regardless of one's view on this subject, we all have our children's and province's future at heart. Therefore, what has been most disturbing to me about this entire process has been the cynical approach adopted by the government. It has become increasingly clear that the final outcome on this matter was determined a long time ago and any "consultation" - court-mandated or otherwise - is just for show. As the Ombudsman's report has made evident, the public has been deceived and the process manipulated. It has been sad to watch and has left me jaded.

If you want a truly rational, well thought out and reasonable plan, read the following column by Janice Harvey that appeared in the Telegraph Journal. I think the Minister should be embarrassed that ordinary citizens are coming up with sane and rational approaches to this issue while the Minister has not only parents and experts saying he's arrogant, unreasonable and unfair, but now both the Court of Queen's Bench and Office of the Ombudsman are saying the same thing. Mr. Lamrock, if I did my job as poorly as you have handled the Education portfolio, I would find myself on the unemployment line in no time.

From the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal - by Janice Harvey:

Now that the court has determined that Education Minister Kelly Lamrock failed the smell test for responsible policy development, the question is, what next? With the file still firmly gripped in his hands, Mr. Lamrock has said he will 'consult' for six weeks and then make a decision in time for implementation in September. He is looking for "ideas" and "suggestions" that will fix the serious problems with the school system in that time, and will make a decision in early August how to proceed.
Tom MacDerrmott bangs on a cowbell at the New Brunswick Legislature as protesters voice their opposition to the government's plan to eliminate early French immersion.
How all that will play out is crystal clear. At the end of six weeks, Mr. Lamrock will say "thanks very much for your input" and carry through with the changes he has already put in motion, eliminating early French immersion and all French instruction until Grade 5 when a 'universal' intensive French program will be taught. When that day comes, New Brunswickers who oppose this restructuring of French language instruction will be even more alienated and angry than they were last March.
Major structural change to educational systems does not happen with 'ideas' and 'suggestions' being submitted to a website. To suggest this as an appropriate response to the legal judgement is insulting and patronizing. Robert McLeod (president of the Progressive Conservatives) has nothing better to offer. He wants another commission appointed to come up with a new set of recommendations, a move that would only continue to muddy the waters.
Clearly, something is seriously wrong with the way politicians view public policy and their role in devising it. Policy developed by bureaucrats supported by their favourite experts works where there is little at stake. But massive change that affects every family with kids in or yet to enter elementary school is of a different nature, as Minister Lamrock has discovered.
Both Liberal and Conservative approaches continue to distance citizens from their government, especially the MLAs they elected to make the big decisions.
Over the years MLAs have been sidelined by the 'expert' syndrome (not to mention the multi-stakeholder syndrome, the stuff of another column) and by bureaucracies that find public engagement messy and inconvenient.
Surely a topic as important and volatile as education warrants the full attention, not of the education department (which has yet to be held accountable for the dismal results in New Brunswick schools, though it deserves to be), but of the Legislature.
Committees of the Legislature are the proper vehicle for testing major policy proposals and for inviting public input to the policy development process. (Such a committee has been set up to consult on tax reform policy).
The only way for Premier Graham to salvage this situation is to take the education file out of the hands of the education department and its minister and give it to the Legislature. He should immediately strike a bi-partisan legislative committee on education to carry out the consultation ordered by the court. Minister Lamrock would not sit on that committee but would be called as a witness.
The committee's mandate would be broad, looking at all educational issues in New Brunswick, not just the best way to teach second languages. The minister contends that all our educational challenges can be traced back to the existence of early French immersion, and therefore the elimination of this program will solve all those challenges.
A legislative committee would examine the merit of these claims by looking at all the factors impinging on the education of our children.
Members would avail themselves of the expertise available in the several reports commissioned by the government, and they would invite whomever they wish to provide expert testimony. Teachers should be given 'immunity' to also testify without threat of repercussion.
The committee's most important role would be to hear directly from the public regarding their experience with and aspirations for the educational system, and to respond as elected representatives, not as bureaucrats with turf to protect or axes to grind, nor as experts with credentials to defend. Politicians are ultimately accountable for the education system and they should assume that responsibility with great humility and respect for the citizens they serve.
Given the need to solve some pretty serious problems, there must be no deadline on the work of the legislative committee.
Consultation needs to be done right and final recommendations must ring true for all concerned. A daunting task, but one the public and our representatives are up for if given the chance.

Dear FSL reviewers,

As a long time member of the various governance bodies in the province of NewBrunswick, there have been many occasions for input on various issues. The issue of learning a second language in the province has been ongoing. During the days of the Provincial Board of Education, an active parent's group from the Moncton area (Hillcrest School) fought for the retention of their grade 4 entry point to French Immersion. Their rationale was sound but their arguments did not sway the government of the day.

The relatively new Intensive French program, a language based program (as opposed to a program which teaches a language, using the vehicle of different subject learning) has become a good alternative to this Grade 4 Middle Immersion program. (especially as taught at both the grade 4 and 5 levels). In fact, it is superior, partly due to the different Glasser-like approach in the classroom, which keeps the students motivated and interested in their learning. It is my belief that as the success of this program became more widely understood, the impact of streaming on the early years by Early Immersion programs would have been diminished substantially, through attrition in registration.

While understanding the urgency to have many changes in education in the province (especially related to our dismal national and international test results), there are inherent structural issues which also must be addressed.

Certainly having all students in the same classrooms as long as possible would be the recommendation of the OECD (see T/T article March 25, 2008 as attached below). At the same time, for certain students, we must acknowledge that Early Immersion does work well. So the question really becomes, "What is the most equitable way of enhancing the learning of a second language for the whole student body, at the same time as cultivating a love of learning for the same student body?".

At the same time as the debate rages, we really have not heard the voice of many second language educators. There are many who believe that a base language must be learned first and that then the skills of language acquisition can be transferred to the learning of a new language. In this perspective, we must acknowledge that there are some of our students who have that mastery of base language before even reaching grade one (and thus would be successful in Early Immersion type programs). The broader question then goes back to one of equity. The very nature of Immersion programs causes a division in our population - if you start early, you are removed from the larger masses, and a point is reached early on when the masses cannot join your group.

Based on these musings, as well as those of the appended T/T article, my recommendations would include:

1) Delaying entry into an immersion setting (which stratifies the student body) until at least grade 3 or 4. A year or 2 of Intensive French for all of the students would be appropriate at this stage, followed by a choice of Middle Immersion (grade 5 onward) as well as other enrichment type programs (for example science, math, art, music, Spanish).

2) The best qualified and enthusiastic teachers should be working with the whole student body. Any student in a math class should have access to the teacher in the school who has the gift for teaching math.

3) Flexibility in program delivery should be encouraged. The students of Bessborough School were for many years in variance of policy 309, having their French Immersion students spending 30% time on task instead of 70%. Yet this school at the time led the district in math and English test scores. The students were able to regroup for math, science and English classes so that the streaming effect was diluted. At the same time, through excellence in FSL instruction, a couple of the students attended high school in the Francophone district (and were top students in the language portion of the IB program).

4) No contact with any FSL instruction until the Intensive French program could be problematic. There should be some opportunity to have access to French instruction from the time of entry to school. Using best practice, the time might be better spent in meaningful blocks of time (similar to the Intensive program) such as one morning a week rather than � hour every day.

By having access to the best subject teachers for all students, by adopting the Glasser-like qualities of the Intensive French program, by allowing freedom to be different, by encouraging initial access to a second language, by delaying streaming until later years, we would be able to maximize not only learning but also teaching for our student body.

The perspective of a top down bureaucracy needs to change. Empowering the elected DECs to fully carry out their role, and respecting that role by making DECs a considered partner in educational decisions (rather than another member of the public afterthought), we will foster more global awareness of the issues.

Of course, another perspective would be to set up some Immersion kindergartens, and then open up the doors of our Francophone schools to those students exhibiting aptitudes for the second language.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts,

TT article March 25, 2008

The intention of the two previous articles in this column was to give the public some of the background information necessary in order to participate in informed discussion related to the learning of French by Anglophone students. The article on February 26 described the different approaches used in the "core French" versus "immersion" programs, and described the strengths and weaknesses of the different programs. The article of March 11 described the new Intensive French program which has been piloted in the province for the last 6 years, and gave the results of data collected from the pilot.

Since writing the above articles, the French Second language Commission has released their report, and the Minister of Education has followed up with a decision to scrap Early Immersion, replacing it with Intensive French at grade 5 for all students in the province. This decision, made very quickly, requires some sober second thought. Not only does the report on which the decision was based contain some serious flaws, but the timeline for implementation may in fact set the new program up for less than stellar performance.

Related to the report itself:

1) Calculated success rates related to the various currently offered French Second language programs are misleading. As an example, for one cohort of students, 1469 started in Early French Immersion. By the end of grade 12, 414 wrote the exam, and 234 were successful in attaining the desired competency level. The authors interpret this as 15.9% successful (234/1469). This interpretation is blatantly unfair. The reality is that nobody can predict how the students who did not take the test (which is optional) would have fared. The commissioners should have considered the new grade 10 French test results, and should have spoken to students to determine why they were no longer taking French courses at grade 12, or why they did not participate in the test. Indeed, they would likely have found that many Early Immersion students found that the blending of Early and Late Immersion students in grade 9, while beneficial to the Late Immersion learners, left many Early Immersion students feeling they were actually losing ground. The commissioners would also likely have found that the lack of availability of math and science courses in French (courses which many students required for the intended university entrance) left no choice but to drop French Immersion. The last concern is that the grade 12 test is only offered free of charge to students still taking French courses at grade 12. Although other students can participate, they are required to pay for the privilege.

2) Dollar figure analysis is an "interesting" manipulation of data. While there are inherent additional costs related to the various immersion courses (and the commissioners are not very explicit on what exactly those additional costs pertain to) the assessment of the final cost per "successful" child is ridiculous. Just because a child did not stay in French courses all the way to grade 12 (and subsequently write and pass the assessment) does not mean that the child received no benefit from the time spent in French Immersion.

3) While the commissioners were mandated to "conduct a comprehensive assessment of FSL programming and services" and committed to "examine current research on Second Language Education and best practices (primarily FSL) in other jurisdictions.", there is no mention of the results of the Intensive French program at the combined grade 4 and 5, as has been piloted in 6 schools in the Moncton area for the last 5 years. This is an egregious oversight. The results from the combined years classrooms have been impressive (with 90% of students being successful, in classrooms which have difficult classroom compositions). The fact that young children up to grade 4 are intuitive learners (and have a much easier ability to pick up on intonation and inflection and thus speak more like a native speaker) should not be overlooked. The original Intensive French design (at grade 6 in most provinces, but grade 5 in most of New Brunswick) was intended to tap into the fact that by grade 5 student's brains are shifting in their learning to a more "efficient" style of learning, whereby it is easier to learn new vocabulary and make connections related to rules of language. The downside of this shift in learning is the lessening of natural intuitive learning. Thus, the combined grade 4 (intuitive learning style) and grade 5 (shift to efficient learning style) would offer the best of both worlds.

4) The reality is that we have no idea what learning in the grade 5 intensive French classes will be like with students having had no exposure to French at all until that time. Any New Brunswick experience to date (including the last 6 years of intensive pilots) has had children who have spent � hour every day in a French subject classroom.

I applaud the fact that, with this discussion, we finally have a politician who is willing to admit that streaming is occurring because of Early French Immersion, with undesirable consequences for the "core" classrooms. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has recently released a book titled "No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education". The authors use the soft data collected during the international PISA testing from 30 countries(the tests which have consistently shone the light on the failure of the New Brunswick education system in math, literacy and science) to assess how different education policies in various countries affects the outcomes for their student bodies. They have found that countries which limit early tracking and streaming and postpone academic selection have consistently better overall results. This has been the great challenge for New Brunswick. Early Immersion has become a "de facto" method of academic streaming, which occurs at a very early stage in education.

Now that the streaming issue is "out of the bag", we need to engage in honest discussion about how to move all of our students forward in achieving success in not only their learning of a second language, but also in all other subjects. This discussion must occur using concrete data, collected and analyzed in a fair, unbiased manner. It is truly a shame that the benefits of the combined grade 4 and grade 5 Intensive French experience are not up for consideration, as this combination may well be a true alternative to Early French Immersion (with the benefits of that program) but without the damaging effects of streaming on the full student body. It is this author's belief that grade 5 is too late.

The quick rollout of the new program is also a concern. Part of the success of the Intensive French program is the vastly different change in approach in the classrooms. These classrooms are very similar to the classrooms advocated by Dr. Bill Glasser in his book "Every Student Can Succeed". The Glasser Quality School involves classrooms where students are actively engaged in their learning, obtaining personal satisfaction from their efforts. This style of learning requires a total rethink of what traditionally happens in the classroom. It will require significant training of the teachers tasked with implementing the program. If the training does not occur, the change in approach will not happen, and the success of the intensive approach will be questionable. Let us not have a repeat of the failure experienced with "Foundation Years" in the late 1990's. It is time for a sober second look at all of the pertinent information related to all of our student body. As well, it is time for a sober discussion about rolling out a new program province wide, and how best to attain success with the program.

Mr. Lamrock,

After having read the Hansard, the Ombudman's Report, the Croll-Lee Report, the decision of Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench and various blogs and comments on the subject of the elimination of Early French Immersion in our New Brunswick school's, I think I make an informed decision when I say that if you eliminate EFI in New Brunswick, it will be detrimental to our children.

I have two daughters who are both in EFI at the moment, one in Grade 1 going on to Grade 2 in September and the other is in Grade 3 going on to Grade 4 in September. Both my children are fully bilingual and have been as a result of EFI and our support at home. Both my children do very well at school also...

I find it deplorable that in the only officially bilingual province in the country there might not be EFI which promotes the learning of a second language. I believe that if you want to do something that would benefit our children's education and improve the EFI program you should start by looking and improving the EFI not eliminating it. As an example in improving EFI, you should maybe start by developing EFI evaluating criteria. I was surprised to see that our children in the EFI are evaluated with criteria from the English program. Our children are learning french and are being evaluated with english criteria, do you see the problem with that...That is just one example of problems within the EFI...Eliminating EFI is not the solution, working with the program to improve is a much better solution...

Also, I do not believe that a decision of this magnitude should be done too quickly...It needs to be examined and debated with the right experts. As the court said two weeks is "unfair and unreasonable" to make an informed decision and implicate all the necessary parties. I also don't believe that giving the public six weeks is much more fair and reasonable. The subject needs to studied profoundly. The necessary experts needed to be consulted. The people need to be consulted. I don't think that this can be done accurately in a period of six weeks. And the teachers and schools will certainly not be able to be ready for whatever decision you plan to make in three or four weeks as everything is up in the air at the moment. I hope that will all that has been said and that will be said, you will reconsider your deadline of August in making a decision concerning EFI.

After listening to your interview on CTV with Steve Murphy on Wednesday, June 18th, I would like to ask why the Early French Immersion program is being made a scapegoat for the inadequacies in the present english program?
Having had three children successfully graduate from the school system in our province, two of them in the EFI program, I can attest to the fact that this program does very successfully work.
If there are problems in the english program, please work on those without penalizing the children who can handle the french program.
Every worthwhile job advertisement that is printed in our newspapers have the requirement for french/english language. What a pity that in our bilingual province our children are not being given every opportunity to take advantage of this from the earliest age so they will not have to leave our province in search of quality employment when they reach the workforce.
By the time a child reaches Grade 5 they now have a mind-set that makes learning the second language more difficult to learn.

Bonjour,

Comme enseignant de Math�matiques 9i�me ann�e dans le programme d'immersion, je re�ois les �l�ves venant des deux programmes d'immersion: Early Immersion et Late Immersion.

Il y a une diff�rence significative entre l'habilet� en fran�ais oral et �crit des �l�ves venant de chaque programme.

En g�n�ral, les �l�ves du Early Immersion sont plus performant et peuvent participer aux discussions en classe, tandis que les �l�ves du Late Immersion ne s'exprime pas ouvertement en classe et ils �prouvent de la difficult� dans la mati�re.

Alors je me demandais pourquoi la d�cision du gouvernement �tait d'abolir le programme Early Immersion qui produit des meilleurs r�sultats pour adopter un programme qui ressemble au programme Late Immersion qui d'apr�s mon exp�rience est moins performant.

Il ne fallait-t-il pas faire le contraire?

Merci de m'avoir donn� la chance de partager mon opinion.

As an Anglophone raised in an English speaking area in the late 70s/early 80s I'm happy to say my Parents had the foresight to enroll me in French Immersion at a very young age, they both knew that the younger I started the better off I would be when I joined the workforce.

The simple fact that the younger the child, the easier they pick up languages should be all that is needed to show this new language plan is not a good idea. The body of knowledge supporting this fact is overwhelming but seems to have been ignored in favor of this single report.

I feel our current Government should be reminded of the hard fought battle to get to our current official bilingual status before they are allowed to fast track this plan as little good will come from it in its current state.

This report on French Immersion has its good and bad points but making such sweeping changes so quickly and without Public consultation doesn't seem very Democratic. I can't help but feel a little dis-heartened when a Provinces citizens have to take legal action against their own Government to have their views known.

Changing the entry year for FI will do nothing to improve streaming, it will only make it worst the later you go. Streaming will be worst with a grade 3 entry point, and even worst again with a grade 6 entry point. The only way to improve streaming it to provide resourses to FI in the manner as they are provided to Core. Perhaps some of the millions that are provided from the Federal government for minority language education could be used to accomplish this.

I recently moved back to NB from out West and am a graduate of EFI from a small rural school.

I strongly support the findings of the court and the ombudsman an feel this consultation is inadequate in terms of extent, methods, and timing.

I agree there are many issues with the education system today (and of yesteryear) that require significant action. I also agree that streaming occurs in our school system. There are a few issues that contribute heavily to this streaming, namely:
-If a child has difficulties (learning and behavioural) they are encouraged to leave EFI BY EDUCATION STAFF and to go to the perceived 'easier' english stream. This is likely the result of essentially inexistent support services in french. While admittedly it will be more challenging to recruit francophone or bilingual support and specialized services, it is not impossible or prohibitively expensive. The staff are required regardless of language of instruction.

I will follow up with additional suggestions to improve our education system.

I would like to take this opportunity to praise Mr. Lamrock's in the strenths of the content he presented in a CBC radio interviw on June 19th 2008.

Mr Lamrock clearly identified the political agenda that the Provine Ombudsman, Mr Richard has expressed in his report on the provincial goverments policy to elimate early Frecnh immersion in September of 2008.

The province is very fortunate to have an educaion Minister like MR.Lamrock with the courage and conviction to implement a governemnt policy which will begin a process to change a flawed education policy on education which has been a major reason why all of our childern have not had the opportunity to be educated in the French language.

I like the majoriety of new Brunswickers enthustically appaud Mr. Lamrocks commitemmnt to improve education in the province by implementing the governments polciy on French eduation.

Thank you

I have had my two sons who are now 36 and 38 go through the whole Early French Immersion program here in the District 2 School System in the Moncton area. My sons both came out fully bilingual and got good jobs because they were able to speak, read and write both French and English. The system worked and somewhere along the way this Program has gotten broken. Listen to the Judge, Mr. Richard, several private education experts, and thousands of concerned New Brunswick parents, and postpone the cancellation of EFI until 2009/10 and in the meantime try to look at fixes and also properly consult with the stakeholders of this issue. In everyone's view except the Liberal Government and die-hard Liberal supporters, the Graham government paid to have a report written with the recommendation that they told the writers they wanted. Mr. Lamrock does not know what he is talking about, is arrogant, and should step down now.

Mr. Lamrock:

I do believe that you have the best interests of New Brunswick's children at heart, and that you sincerely believe that your plan is will right injustices in the system. But the way you have gone about this process, and your arrogance and inflexibility after the recent court decision and ombudsman's report, is disrespectful of both parents and children.

I agree (as I believe almost everyone does) that something drastic has to change about the current educational system, and it MAY involve big changes to EFI. But drastic change should never happen without thorough preparation and careful thought. It must not be based on flawed analysis, or rushed for political reasons or personal ego. It must not be patronizing and paternalistic.

Please, Mr. Lamrock, put your own ego aside and stop telling yourself that only you know what is best for our children. Take the time to consult experts whose work is respected by their peers. Take the time to educate the public about both the problems in the system and potential solutions. Listen to parents' and children's concerns.

Hello:

I find the government's entire approach to the EFI issue to be cyncial, 'top-down' and divisive.

In the early 1980s, hearings in NB on bilingualism were marked by rowdiness, threats of violence and disrespect-and were followed by an anti-French backlash that included the CORE Party. Now we have Anglophone families who want to have their children exposed to French at an early age-a right that people have in every other province in Canada. And the government had attempted to portray them as 'enemies' of the public interest. Parents have had to hire lawyers to fight their own government.
This is unprecedented in New Brunswick and perhaps Canadian history. It is actually quite disgraceful.

The government also seems to suggest that literacy levels, etc. are the 'fault' of EFI. Most social scientists would point to poverty and social deprivation as the leading contributing factors. In other words, broader socio-economic issues are the culprit.

I also worry about making more French mandatory for all students at the older ages-my own son, who is nearly 14, has not been in school for 2 years because of his behaviour. He would not be able to handle additional French studies and will continue to be a forgoten student.

The Minister's response to the recent judicial decision, from what I heard on the CBC, seems very cyncial and not worthy of 'a Minister of the Crown.'
He appears to think of it as a minor delay.

Then there is the so-called consulatation. First of all, it is being done over the summer, when people are travelling, at the cottage, etc. How convenient.
I know many people who do not have computers-asking the public to send in e-mails is a very limited form of 'consulatation.'

The so-called consulatation, the manner through which the policy appears to have been formulated, its
compatability with the neo-liberal agenda of Big Business and the government's arrogant attitude makes me fear for the future of this province.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the amount of misinformation that exists. It worries me that so many people are misinformed. Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, we need to look at facts and proof before pointing the accusatory finger. I have spent the past 3 months reading all the reports (MacKay, Croll-Lee, Rehorick, Scraba), interviewing teachers, parents, analyzing statistics available on Gov't websites and nowhere do I see any proof that the EFI program is causing poorer test results for core students - I challenge anyone to show me this info. It simply does not exist. The lowest PISA test scores come from the northern francophone community - no streaming there. New Brunswick also has one of the fastest growing immigrant populations - do you realize many of these students are given a score of zero on these tests? Also absentees are given a score of zero. They apparently have a 2 week allowance for a make-up test but many are never given the test. New Brunswick also has a higher than average number of children with exceptionalities. Many of these children are also given scores of zero on their tests. We as a province do not promote our testing like some other areas do. Many children do not even realize the work they are doing is going to be marked. This is not the best way to get children to do their best work. If they felt the importance of the testing, I believe it would turn in a result more reflective of what they are capable of. Did they get a good night's sleep the night before testing, did they eat breakfast? How are the other provinces approaching their testing? I think this is quite valuable to investigate before we are willing to dismiss New Brunswick's children as the stupidest in the country. Other provinces have winning attitudes and drive for success. A parent's core values and attitudes play a significant role in how a child perceives the importance of school. Children are only likely to rise as high as the bar is set for them.

I know that New Brunswick prides itself on its inclusive model for education. There are many wonderful benefits to all that come from inclusion. On the other hand however, almost every single teacher I spoke with identified full inclusion as their greatest challenge to their classroom. The increasing number of IEP's and SEP's, constant interruptions and violent outbursts without a doubt take productive learning time away from students. These are some serious issues that need to be addressed. EFI, interestingly enough, was around roughly 15 years before full inclusion. The proper resources were never put into place for the school systems to handle this - shame on those who left the students and teachers in such a position. Now it seems that EFI has become Minister Lamrock's sacrificial lamb to help this huge problem. While I applaud the Minister for his commitment to dealing with this issue, I do not applaud his methods. You cannot simply make stuff up to meet the demands of your portfolio. The best way of tackling any issue is to find the root cause of a situation and go from there - if you want true success that is. We need to engage experts, teachers and parents to brainstorm and come up with creative solutions to being committed to inclusion while at the same time creating less disruptive classroom settings.

Some schools have behavior mentors, social learning centers, elementary school guidance counselors etc. These resources are doing some great things in certain schools. I think as a province we need to have some consistency among our school districts. We need to look at some best practice sites. What are they doing so well at their schools and how can other schools incorporate some of the same programs. Example: at my son's school (a school with a large EFI population) there was a 20 day reading program for marginal readers in grade 2 English. A child was pulled out of class for a half hour a couple days a week (during gym or music I believe). At the end of this reading program, the number of marginal readers in grade 2 English was zero - pretty remarkable. We could draw on parents and grandparents to be readers at school as was the case in my younger son's grade 1 class. That is free!

I would like to add my personal opinion that I don't think parents and students are properly prepared for what to expect when starting an early immersion program for the first time. It doesn't come easily to everyone. Neither does riding a bike. Kids are going to respond to the program with different capabilities. Just as they do in English. In fact, I have noticed that a lot of the time the kids who struggle with reading in French immersion were the same ones who struggled in reading in kindergarten. Why does this suddenly freak parents out? Their child struggles in reading. Their child struggled in English and now not surprisingly, they struggle in French. Any second language expert will tell you that reading skills are transferable from one language to another. Eventually these kids will get it we just need to give them a chance. It is easier for a child to pick up a second language in reading when the second language is their mother tongue. This is perhaps why we see EFI kids eventually surpass kids in the English program around the end of elementary school - and they are bilingual to boot. Some kids won't speak it so their parents see it as a failure. I have been told many times this can be related to confidence and not ability. Some children want to get it down pat before speaking. When they do speak, they are speaking in full and proper sentences. Much like how some babies babble at an early age while others barely speak before they are three but when they do, you can't stop them. We need to be ok with the fact that children are going to learn at different paces. We put so much pressure on these little 6 year olds. We were just barely learning to read when I was in grade one. Now it is an expectation in kindergarten. Soon we will be expecting our preschoolers to read and so on and so on. As I mentioned before, I am all about raising the bar but we have to be careful that we are doing it at a realistic, age appropriate rate.

Minister Lamrock points out poor literacy rates. He didn't seem to be aware at a recent meeting that there is now an English proficiency exam that all students must pass before graduating from High School. You are given a first attempt to write it in grade 9. If you pass, you do not write it again. If you don't pass, you can attempt again in grades 10, 11, and 12 until you do pass or you cannot graduate.

With respect to the Minister's comments about the French programs not being successful, people should know that this is based on a voluntary exam taken in grade 12 when most kids have not even taken French since grade 10. I would suggest mandatory testing in French Language Proficiency at the end of grades 5, 8 and 12. Also I would make it mandatory to take a full year French Language Arts program every year through to the end of grade 12. The current French Immersion program seems to have its strongest component in elementary school and then sort of falls apart from there. That's all the more reason to keep EFI programs.

Finally, I would like to say in closing that I am a stay at home mom (former nurse), I was a graduate of the core program, I do not speak French or have any French ancestry that I am aware of. I have 2 boys in EFI and a preschooler who will hopefully be in EFI one day. I have seen the beauty of this program and as a parent I am trying to soak it all in myself. My understanding of conversation now is improving all the time. I have done a lot of research on this topic because it is of great importance to me. The observation I wish to make at the risk of some people cringing I'm sure is that many of the supporters of Minister Lamrock's plan don't seem to be very well read on the reports and real statistics. If you were you would see that the numbers just don't add up. They just don't.

Minister Lamrock, I urge you to take the Ombudsman's recommendation of holding off on eliminating the EFI program for at least one year. Show us some respect for wanting to be engaged in this process. We are willing to work with you to come up with the best education system possible for the children of New Brunswick. It is simply the right thing to do.

Thank you.