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.

Thank you Mr. Lamrock,

I am an educator in the school system and I fully support your decision to cut the early french immersion program for the better intensive french program. I have seen first hand the "streaming" that goes on in these programs. My classroom has been considered an easy fix for the children who require extra help in the french classrooms no matter how much of the curriculum they have missed. I have seen classrooms with as little as 14 children in them while I am down the hall with many more children who have many more issues to deal with. I also have very bright and gifted students who will excel in a second language should they choose to explore that avenue later in life. I see this huge discrepancy everyday.

I listen to our Kindergarten teachers say everyday that they would not recommend the program for students who are already struggling in their first language but parents are so caught up in the image of EFI that they often ignore the Kindergarten teachers recommendations and opt for EFI anyway. They are doing a disservice to their children for an image and status.

I personally will never enroll my children in the EFI program, capable or not, because I feel that my children would be better off learning their math and sciences in their first language and when they want to learn a second language they can make that choice. I was a LFI student who did very well in the program at the time and have since lost my french because I have never had french friends or had to use french in any of my daily activities or profession. I actually do not know very many people who need to use french in their professional or personal lives.

I also would like to comment on the fact that in rural schools there often is no early french immersion program offered at all. What do the FI advocates say to this end? How is this fair to those children? Do they not deserve to learn a second language as well? The new system will be implemented in all schools, city and rural.

Please, Mr. Lamrock, continue your efforts and know that you do have plenty of support out there.

I am begging you, Minister Lamrock, to please give Dr. J Dicks' and P. Kristmanson's "Alternate Plan to FSL" a chance. Both are well known FSL researchers, and they have sent you a hard copy, as well as an electronic copy of their proposal. It suggests the following:
1. Keep EFI - let's train more resource persons so this can be a program for ALL children, as it is too valuable a program to lose.
2. Implement the intensive French program, however begin in grade 1.
3. Phase out LFI - it simply causes more streaming than EFI, and once this program is grandfathered out, use the LFI teachers to teach French in the intensive program.

Thank you for your time.

I belive the minister is going in the right direction as I found a difference with my grandson as he was in the intense french in grade 5 this year and was doing much better than he was before with the little french he was getting in the first 4 years before the trial of intense french in grade five this year. at last we have a minister who is thinking of all our children not just a few. Keep up the good work and do not give up

To whom it may concern,

As an educator in this province and a past French Immersion student in this province, I agree with Mr. Lamrock's decision. The program that is currently in place is just simply not working. I have witnessed the Intensive French program in action (my school was one of the pilot project school) and I think it's a great and effective way for all students to learn French.

I believe the french second language program is a complete waste of $$$. Our province just can't afford it economically and at our children's literacy expense. Nice idea, but not logical. We have had a bilingual education program for many years and I am just not seeing that many bilingual people coming out of it. It seems that if your mother tongue is french, then yes, you are bilingual. If your mother tongue is english, you have to pass tests and jump through hoops and I really have not met anyone that is officially bilingual that started out english. Which brings me to french immersion for my children. I did not put any of my children in the program and I am so glad I didn't. There is no way I would allow the use of my children for politics. They are straight A students in the English program. So they do not fall into the low achievement in math, literacy and science. (My oldest son is a physics/chemistry major student with a 4.1 average at UNB). Will he ever need french, not a chance. If he decides to learn french, he can go ahead, I am sure he would do fine. I know it is easier to learn languages when you are young, but it can be done later. If you are a sharp learner, you can learn anything anytime.
As far as phys ed., art and music and enrichment activities. I really hope they are returned to the system. Especially gym. We all have bodies and I can't think of a better thing to learn about or work on. Now that is something universal.
French is important to some people, but not all. If it is part of your heritage, go to it. It is not part of mine. Why do we have to force people to agree with how we think. Really, the french we learn in New Brunswick is different than french in France and Quebec. So if I am bilingual, that is great while I am in NB. The world is a big place. I encourage my children to get good marks and get out of this province, as there is nothing being offered to them here unless they are french, so just go somewhere else and offer their expertese in whatever they become. If we could drop what is dragging us down, maybe they would stay and contribute to NB.

Hopefully, they move to the Carribean and I can visit. I would learn Spanish, because I could and it would be my choice. Who doesn't like choices?

So way to go Kelly Lamrock. Finally someone with some spine to oppose the lunacy that has been going on too long. Way to think of the kids.

Mr. Lamrock,

I have just watched you on the news and I am very insulted as being labeled an elitist that is for segregation because it benefits my child, and that I am selfish as I don't consider the well being of those with disabilities. I can't believe that the Premier supports the insults that you seem to throw out so effortlessly. I have a son in early immersion, grade 1. I did not put him there because I am an elitist and did not want my son associating with children with special needs, or because he would be held back because others in the class require more help. I work with individuals with disabilities and I have always worked to make sure they are able to achieve their maximum level of independence. To make blanket statements about those that feel your decision to eliminate EFI was not in the best interest of students is irresponsible of a man in your position.

ALL students have equal opportunity to enter EFI. Most children with disabilities do not do so as there are no resources to help them in that program or their parents feel it is important for them to learn in their own language. You say that by taking away early immersion it will assist these children and those in classes with them. Please explain to me how. It is you that is labeling them as being the reason children in classes with them are doing poor in math and literacy skills. I find this interesting as the scores for literacy and math in the francophone sectors are worse and there is no"segregation" or plot by elitist parents to have a two tiered system.

Our children with disabilities do not have the supports they need to achieve the life skills that will make a difference for them. For some, a busy classroom with lots of distractions actually decreases their ability to learn. As someone who works in a Centre for rehabilitation I also realize that any one of our own children could have an accident and be that child on a special education program. Therefore, I want an education system that is best for ALL students.

I DO NOT feel, nor do many others, that we should keep the status quo. From your statements that supporters of EFI want the status quo it appears you have only read the Croll Lee report (the one that was manipulated to support your already determined plan) and not any of the reports by other experts, emails you have received, or even the Ombudsman's report. They almost all state that no one wants the system to stay the same. We all want it IMPROVED.

You mentioned that their are other options like Joe Dicks report. Have you considered it? Do you really think that from Aug 5 until Sept will give you enough time to implement something like that? We don't even have all the teachers in place and trained for the Grade 5 intensive yet.

As a parent, who is from a family of educators and married into a family of educators who spend everyday trying to make a difference in the lives of these children, I feel you have let us and the system down.

Please listen to the courts and the Ombudsman and take a year to consult and make a well thought out plan that will benefit everyone. By rushing this you are making it hard on administrators, teachers, and the students themselves. You say waiting a year will be detrimental for children. By not waiting a year and doing it properly, you are creating a system of confusion that is ill prepared to give our students the quality education they need.

Don't we have the greatest school system ever!!! My oldest is in grade 1 and is currently in the French emersion program but my youngest who is starting kindergarten next year, will not get the same opportunity which is bad enough. Not only that but last year, because of where we live, our kids where force to go in a different school because of a catchman area change. This means that my oldest will keep on following the French emersion track in one school and my youngest will go to a totally different elementary school. They will be separated until high school. As a parent, this is a great concern of mine, not only for the education content received which will be different but for the whole school experience and all the complications this will involve. They will be separated until high school. The French emersion program is important to me but having both my kids go to the same school is also very important!!!!

Minister Lamrock, I do not support your proposed experiment. An alternate plan has been presented to you already, which I highly recommend you consider implementing. The plan of Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson can be found here: http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Resources/PDFs/AltPlan5.pdf. I would only add one thing, Intensive French in grade 5 should be optional, just as in the pilot projects.

Although I currently live in Ontario, I was born and raised in New Brunswick and went through the early French immersion program. This experience was not only beneficial in regard to the opportunities it opened for me in the job market, but also because of the work ethic I developed while managing language acquisition and the other fundamentals of academia.

The proposed change in the public school system would make me reconsider any plans to return to New Brunswick to raise a family for several reasons. First, early French immersion is essential in establishing a platform for more advanced linguistic training later in life. It has been found that the potential for second language adoption is at its highest between 3-11 years of age (Collier, 1987; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978; Klien, 1986, Oxford, 1982; Genesee, 1998; Patkowski, 1980 and 1990; Lee, 1992; etc.). In addition, the learning process should begin ideally before the age of 7 years old if an individual wishes to ensure the long-term maintenance of this acquisition versus eventual linguistic extinction (Johnson & Newport, 1989; DeKeyser, 2003; etc.). Second, without a strong understanding of French it will be extremely difficult for my children to be competitive in the both the New Brunswick and inter-provincial workforces. For instance, most Canadian hospitals, government positions, and public services are now strictly enforcing bilingual hiring preferences and mandatory bilingual assessments. Third, I know that this change in the education system will greatly impact the New Brunswick economy overall as: a) many individuals will leave the province to access better education for their children, b) many jobs will have to be outsourced to people from other provinces who have a strong understanding of French, and c) less business will come into New Brunswick as it will no-longer be an ideal National test-market for bilingual services and products.

Beyond the above, I am greatly concerned with the research the proposed plan regarding immersion is based upon. As a social researcher I am appalled by the quality of the Croll & Lee "FLS Report" (2008) for a myriad of reasons - with one of the major discrepancies being the undisclosed methodology section which is integral to any report of merit. If the report went through any form of peer-review prior to publication such faults would have been noted as the surveys, interviews and analysis of the results can not be replicated by other researchers in order to insure reliability and validity. For instance, longitudinal statistics on page 8 pertaining to the percentage of students in core French and early French immersion (1994) who obtained a minimum of "intermediate" standing in grade 12 French proficiency testing (2007) did not present the amount of students who transferred out of the French programs or left the province. Because of this, one is left to believe that the results are negatively skewed by the omission. This was only the first page of results and each statistic which is presented in the report is flawed in varying degrees due to similar omissions and biased reporting. Although the statistics were flawed, the recommendations were even more questionable as they were based on the improper use of the biased results: a double offence in the research world. An example was the recommendation on page 10 which suggests that grade 5 students enter into an intensive French program after receiving no core French education. This recommendation was based on feasibility and efficiency observations and data obtained from grade 5 students who had been through the core program which would clearly positively skew the results. In addition, there are no recommendations in regard to the text books or course requirements which will be used for these grade 5 courses. The qualitative data was also misleading as one is not privy to the questions individuals were asked in the interviews and it was not stated whether the coding of the interview data was subjected to inter-rater reliability testing.

In contradiction to the biased report data, I know through first-hand experience that the courses I took in French enhanced my overall performance in several academic avenues especially in my English coursework. By the time I was in high school I was taking advanced English courses. This was because I had learned how to deconstruct the components of language and sentence structure by learning a second language structurally as apposed to learning solely via social learning as we tend to do with our first language (i.e. given language). I also know that courses such as math were not negatively affected by taking them in French. Once I was required to take my GRE testing in order to attend a Masters program, I realised that the French mathematical terms I was familiar with could be easily translated into English and I preformed extremely well in the English of mathematical sections of the GREs.

Although I could continue, I will conclude by stating that it is clear that the authors' primary mandate to "improve student achievement levels while at the same time addressing and/or eliminating any associated negative impacts on the overall system" (p.6) does not account for the long-term under-achievement which unilingual graduates will face in the Canadian job market. Nor does it account for the negative impacts which the plan will impart on the education system and New Brunswick's economy. I am shocked by the Minister of Education's acceptance of the FLS report and its recommendations. I am also extremely disappointed that New Brunswick politicians have thus far, refused to listen to the pleas for reason from their once trusting constituents.

As a parent of a current kindergarten student, I was faced with the daunting task this winter of whether to choose EFI or not for my son. After carefully weighing the pros and cons, I elected to enroll him in immersion and and much to my chagrin, that decision taken away from me a few weeks later.

I knew right from the beginning that I would be placing him in an immersion program because bilingualism will be crucial to his future success in the workforce, but it was a daunting task choosing between the EFI and LFI because they both have their flaws. Growing up, I was in the Core French program and the French language instruction (or lack thereof!) was atrocious. I was fortunate enough to grow up in Moncton and was therefore able to learn enough French from my friends to become functional. However, I have very strong English skills which I cannot help but wonder if they would have been hindered had I been placed in an immersion program. Similarly, I had many friends who went through the EFI program who now, as adults, have poor English language spelling and grammmar skills. I also have other friends who were products of the LFI program and can barely converse in French. As an academic, I try my best to avoid anecdotal evidence and rely on facts, but as a parent making a decision for my child, personal experience speaks volumes.

I am not 100% in favour of EFI because I think that 90% French in the early grades is way too much. This is a critical age when children are learning to read and spell and I think that more focus is needed on developing these skills in the child's first language. I also think that 30% in high school is way too little and does nothing to help students retain the French language skills they have learned in their early years (I'd like to see a 50-50 split right from kindergarten). However, the alternative, no French language instruction whatsoever until Grade 5 is absolutely unacceptable and worries me profusely. I've read the studies and fail to see how this will improve bilingualism in the province. I also certainly do not want my son to be a guinea pig for an unproven program and I certainly do not appreciate having my choice to enroll my son in EFI revoked.

Listen to the parents -- give us back our choice and try to fix the problems with the current programs before introducing a new and untested one.

I will be submitting a full response to the Minister's request for input on French Second Language programming in due course in advance of the July 25th deadline. For interest sake, I am opposed to the changes proposed by the Minister and am deeply troubled by the process the Minister has used to implement these changes.

Before I submit my full input at a later date, I would like to say that I do not believe the consultation process outlined by the Minister, namely this on-line format with a smattering of District open-houses (scheduled with little notice to the public and in the first week of the consultation process - before the public has an opportunity to properly become informed on the subject). In my opinion, the proposed six week consultation process flies in the face of the spirit, if not the letter, of Justice McLellan's June 11, 2008.

If the Minister truly wants to bring all sides together and have an open and full debate, he must do so in accordance with the principles set out in this Liberal goverment's own consultation document "It's More than Talk: Listen, Learn and Act: A New Model for Public Engagement".

Lamrock,
RE: Axing Early French Program in a Bilingual Province
I do not agree with how you have handled this whole issue since the very beginning. You do not put anyone first, especially our children.
Start listening to the parents, teachers, experts, etc, instead of your just "one sided" opinion. And please, give the people of NB a little credit. Your Croll/Lee report had so many holes in it, you could drive a truck through it.
Swallow your pride and at least talk to everyone in person. Not a debate through emails, websites and newspapers.

I am a parent of a "special needs" kindergarten-aged child. I guess that makes him "dead weight" in the classroom, as you seem to suggest that children like him make learning difficult for everyone and "overburden" the teachers. My son has made tremendous progress over the past several years, since he has the support of parents who believe in him and expert intervention at an early age. I was looking forward to his entry into the Early French Immersion program. I have long been advised that no teachers' assistants or resource people have been available to assist special needs children in the immersion program. Moreover, parents are precluded from hiring assistants in the classroom because it isn't fair to those who can't afford private assistance. And you wonder why there is streaming? Make this program accessible to all children instead of funneling everyone on an SEP into Core and you would go a long way toward reducing your problems with streaming. I'm sure there are a lot of parents like me who want to give their special needs child the gift of a second language at an early age (when they have the neurological capacity to learn best), and who have been prevented by the system perpetuated by Department of Education.

In Nova Scotia, these services are offered to special needs children, and they have the second-to-lowest cost-per-student in Canada. Why not consider what other provinces are doing to make their systems perform better than ours while still offering EFI?

Frankly, I see no correlation between illiteracy and the EFI program. Every other province offers EFI, and every other province has higher scores than NB. They must be doing something right.

I watched Minister Lamrock on the ATV news last evening. The entire basis for the elimination of core french and early french immerson, according to Kelly's answers last evening, are because the english classrooms are being overwhelmed by children with special needs and therefore, the educational scores for the Province evaluate at a poor level. Apparently our government's answers to these problems are to take the children that do well, in school, and force them back into the english program, to bring the English scores up to par with the rest of the country.

Does this not seem like a ludicrous decision to anybody else? Is the percentage of children in our school system with special needs that high? If this is the case perhaps we need to do a study to figure out why that is happening! Maybe we would be better served to "fix" the English program instead of elminating the early immersion program.

Minister Lamrock also stated in his interview last night that this six-week consultation period is to allow anybody with a better idea to fix this problem to bring it forward. We should look to the different countries in Europe who seem to have no problem graduating children who speak three and four languages, yet here we are struggling with two!

This decision will make New Brunswick the laughing stock of the country. It's insane to think a child can get a bilingual education in Alberta or Newfoundland, yet in our country's only bilingual Province, they cannot! We need to have choices... including core french, french immesion (which should actually start in kindergarten, not grade 1), late immersion or the english program.

Hopefully this government is listening to what the people have to say, but I suspect not. Leaving the teachers up in the air like this for the entire summer, leaving parents of children who are "supposed" to be enrolled in Grade 1 early immersion up in the air like this is the most insane thing ever. And holding a public consultation during the summer months while most people are unavailable and vacationing is just an indication that our government does NOT want to hear what we have to say; they've already made their decision!

If this government doesn't wake up and see the errors of their ways (not only in this circumstance either) they will definitely go down in history as the most irresponsible group to govern this Province.

Dear Minister Lamrock -

I was shocked when I heard the announcement that the Early French Immersion was going to be cut. I have a daughter in Kindergarten and had filled out the form to enroll her into French in Sept 2008 with the understanding the program would be available. I was very disappointed in the lack of communication prior to the decision being made.

I do agree there are some problems with the program, but do not believe getting rid of it is the answer. After having read the report your decision was based upon, I truly feel this decision was rushed and based upon false data. I think the parents and educators should have some say in decisions that affect our children and their jobs.

Thank You

I believe the education minister was correct in his decision regarding EFI. Too much money has been spent on a program that isn't working. Our tax dollars should be spent on items such as text books for middle & high school students. Many english students have to share textbooks. Perhaps that could possibly be contributing to the low scores.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,

This does not seem to me to constitute public consultation. It is too easily ignored, does not include language education experts, and is not public. The various information sessions around the province are clearly designed to deflect criticism and avoid having a public forum where what is being proposed and why can be reacted to.

This seems like a continuation of what looks to me like an obvious attempt to proceed with your agenda despite all the various recommendations to do a proper assessment and implement a well-designed program for the academic year in 2009. While I have my own experience as the father of a very successful student of EFI I am open to changes that will improve the EFI program and language education in general in NB. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that eliminating EFI will be an improvement either in the French speaking abilities of Anglophone NB students or in solving the problems in the English program that you seem to think it will. Your claims are not supported by evidence, what evidence you've made public is largely discredited and anything that runs contrary to your plan is dismissed out of hand.

My main complaint is that you have managed to polarize and antagonize people on this subject. You have gone about this in a very divisive way. You need to step back, rethink and take the time required to get this right. This isn't a debate or a popularity contest, this concerns our children and they deserve better than what you've come up with and the methods by which you've both defended and come to your conclusions.

You would earn my respect by seriously reconsidering your plan and doing so over the next year leaving EFI intact in the meantime.

I am a Core and Immersion high school teacher. The government's recent decision to scrap EFI is ludicrous. EFI graduates from our school use French in their part-time jobs, attend French universities, and even return to our system to teach in the Immersion and core programmes. Do we really want to see our best and brightest go elsewhere?
LFI students also go on to use their French, but the EFI students are by and large stronger.
No argument that the core system needs a drastic overhaul, but cutting EFI is NOT the answer!
The NBTA's report that teachers do not support the elimintion of EFI is as biased and misleading as Croll and Lee's. First, many French teachers did not do the survey, as they belong to the AEFNB. Second, the survey did not ask us if we wanted to see EFI go, or the response would have been a resounding "NO!" Many teachers put our kids in EFI for a simple reason that has nothing to do with elitism: it works! Is it for everyone? No. But why take away one of the best forms of enrichment that our system offers. Would Minister Lamrock have liked to see his Enriched high school courses eliminated because not everyone could do the work? Do we get rid of Varsity sports b/c everyone can't make the team?
Minster Lamrock has proven himself unable to listen to experts and parents in order to preserve his own ego. Our children are paying the price. He needs to resign...now!

I believe Early French Immersion is an essential part of the New Brunswick school system. I also believe there are ways of addressing concerns of inclusion and literacy within the framework of providing EFI.

Dr. Joe Dicks' plan, published at:

http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Resources/PDFs/AltPlan5.pdf

is an excellent example of alternative programmes that have been provided to Government that address these problems.

I would also invite the Government to follow the process set out in the recent Final Report of the Public Engagement Initiative. Of particular note is the recommendation that:

"At a minimum, one high-profile, large-scale project should be launched within six months of this report's release. Its purpose will be to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model and the government's
commitment to it."

I cannot think of a project of a larger scale or higher profile than this. I challenge the Minister and the Department of Education to show their commitment to public engagement by following this process. This action would go a long way to restoring trust between Government and the general public.

However, we cannot expect to build Rome in a day (or four weeks). The public engagement process should not be limited by the beginning of the 2008-09 school year. Accommodations should be made to enroll those already registered in the Grade 1 EFI program beginning in September.

We all agree that NB children deserve the best education system we can provide. Beginning from that common ground, let's find a solution together.

I have several points that I wish to raise with regard to government decisions on education. Several of these relate to governance in general and several to K-12 educational issues.

1) Meaningful consultation should take place BEFORE decisions are made and not after public outcry or a judicial decision. I voted liberal in the last election because I was fed up with the authoritarian approach of the Lord government, now I find that the replacement is just as bad. Decisions should be made based on input from ALL parties. It appears to me that the Minister made the decision to scrap early immersion after which the Education Ministry went out searching for a "consultant" to back up this fait acompli. I would expect this from the conservatives, not from the liberals.

2) There is no doubt that the education system in New Brunswick is not functioning as well as it could, however, the rhetoric on the unacceptibility of the status quo is not particularly helpful. It seems to me that the government and the Education Minister in particular have decided that the system is completely broken and that anything they put in its place will be better than what we have at present. This may not be the case - the replacement being untested and having little support from the academic community may be even worse.

3) There is no doubt in my mind that early immersion works - I recently attended several events at my daughters school (New Maryland Elementary) the entire grade three immersion class have excellent french language skills and are eager to obtain more. My own experience of trying to learn a language beginning in grade 7 was not one I would wish on any child. Admittedly educational methods may have improved, but it is my feeling that by grade 7 I was too old and too disinterested in learning another language to make the effort.

4) There seems to be issues over the "inclusiveness" of education and the discussion paper and the pamphlets sent out by the Education Minister make much of this. Learning disabilities are a fact of life and certainly cannot be ignored. However, not all such disabilities can be dealt with in the normal classroom setting. In cases where the learning disabled child is disruptive or requires a disproportionate amount of the instructors time the remaining children lose valuable education time. In an effort to be fair the Minister is simply giving our children a "lowest common denominator" education, i.e., they will get what they can while the teacher is dealing with those children who need the most attention.

5) As a University educator I see the results of the New Brunswick K-12 education system on a regular basis. From this perspective I can make several observations. First, students who have been in early immersion have much stronger skills in english grammar than those who have gone in late or have not taken a significant amount of French. Second, many students who have decided to come into the sciences after high school leave the immersion programs not because they are struggling with the language, but because the quality of science teaching in French is not as good as that in english. It would be much easier to keep these students in the FSL programs if my tax dollars were invested in better science education for FSL teachers.

I hope that you find these comments useful and I urge you as both a parent and an educator to reconsider the decision to scrap early immersion from the FSL program.