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 feel that EFI should continue. I am not a language educator and cannot put forward a perfect new plan. Perhaps my views are too simplistic but it seems to me that:
1) those who feel the EFI is not for their child, should carry on as they wish, if there are a greater number of children needing help, help should be provided.

2)those who wish to choose EFI should have that right and those children who struggle should have help. (Mr Lamrock has stated that there are no French specialists. Who helps the children in our French schools now? They cannot be without specialists can they?)

3)There should be more courses made available for high school students in French

4) More money should be put into education and not airplanes, golf courses, MLA raises and redoing studies until we get the answer we want.

4) Open another education program and increase the number of trained teachers specialized this area.

5) But most certainly, August will not be enough time to change anything. I urge the government to put a one year wait on making any changes.

I've been ranting about this in my home for months now unable to understand the reasoning behind this change when one day child 3 of 4 (all are/were in EFI two have graduated and two soon to follow)says "What do you care? It worked for us and it's not like we'd ever stay here with our kids"
From the mouths of babes...

There is no way that a proper consultation on a subject as important as education can be done in six weeks. The minister took at least 18 months to prepare his proposals and he now ask citizens to present better alternatives in six weeks. That is not being fair to the people of NB

One size fits all does not work. All the flowers in the garden do not bloom at the same time.

We live in a democracy. This means that the opinion of citizens are important. As I read the comments on this site as well as numerous comments in newspapers and comments on the internet, one thing is obvious. There are two major lines of thought: Some believe that children should learn their own language first and a second language later. Others believe just as strongly that a second language is better learned at an earlier age. Both opinions are probably correct depending on the child. I believe we should respect both groups by having EFI start in Grade 1 and intensive french in grade 5 as the minister suggest.

What about streaming. If we read all the comments, it seems the problem is that too many children with learning difficulties were in the core French program than were in the Immersion program. The problem was not in the Immersion program but in the core program and it was suggested indirectly by all due to the presence of children with learning difficulties. Cancelling the EFI does not correct the problems currently existing in the core program. One reason it seems that most children with learning dificulties were in the core program is that is where the resources were to deal with them and that those resources were not available in the Immersion program.

Special needs students represent a problem in themselves. According to my information, they represent an enormous challenge to the teachers as they have their regular students to teach a well. I would suggest that for subjects such as language, math and science is that those students would be taught in a separate smaller class by a separate teacher thereby making the regular class similar in learning ability as the immersion classes. I submit that the problem was and is not the immersion classes but class composition (an euphemism for inclusion).

Further, I would submit that it is impossible to teach any subject to students who do not want to learn it. Therefore, choice should be available to parents as to immersion, intensive french or even no french at all.

I read in the documents that immersion students reached the following levels of bilingual proficiency: EFI 42.2% advanced level; immersion 45.6% Intermediate plus for a total of 87.8% bilingualism at level inermediate plus or better. That seems to me to be an enormous success. With the new Intensive French system, the bar is being set at intermediate level only, a level which will not allow graduates to obtain bilingual jobs. There seems to me to be a lack of honesty in this approach.

We are told that the school days in the early grades are shorter in NB than in other provinces. This would certainly be a major reason for our children not developping as fast as those in other provinces. This situation should certainly be correctly immediately. Also, our children miss too many days due to snow days or whatever they are called. I am suggesting that those missed days be replaced at the end of the school year.

The instruction to the Croll-Lee commission were to follow the evidence where it led. Instead the evidence shows that they were in regular communications with the staff of the department and were taking their lead from them including statistics to suport the wishes of the department which were later proven to be misused.There was a lack of honesty here as well.

Intensive French for every student in grade 5 has never been tried, never piloted to students with no prior French learning. The class will contain so many different students with different learning abilities including special needs students and students with behavorial problems that it will be an impossible class.

Ontario and Alberta both have EFI and get much better results than we do. Why. I understand that they have far less inclusion than we have and they also have school boards with real powers. In NB, all the power in centralized in the Dept of Education. They are continuously changing programs and the teachers do not receive the training or the books to teach those new programs. What we need is decentralization, less changes, more stability and more consistancy. Uncertainty creates problems for everybody.

Although we can provide children with an equal opportunity, we must remember that equality of results are of course impossible. We must accept that some cildren will not be as successfull as others.

we are a democracy and parents deserve the right to have a choice as regards to the education of their children when it comes to a controversial subject such as language. We cannot equate language to math.

The end results will depend on the resources allocated to the system such as resource, methods and litteracy teachers to help children with special needs.

One final point, we are one province in Canada. People continuously move between provinces. If all other provinces have EFI, and they do, NB will become the only province without EFI, this will cause severe problems for parents movng in and out of NB. This could very well lead to upwardly mobile parents avoiding NB and adversely affect our stated goal of increasing the population of NB.

It really saddens me to see the abysmal level of knowledge on display in these comments. The consistent points people keep coming back to is "learn English first" and the impact of streaming.

First of all, every bit of research out there states that learning a second language has no impact on a person's ability to develop their first language. If anything, the constant focus on grammar and usage in the second language builds stronger first language skills than first language instruction alone. Also, people don't seem to be aware that English Language Arts starts in grade three for EFI kids. These kids are consistently developing strong literacy skills in both language as they move through the system. If a child struggles, he/she would struggle in either language instruction.

With respect to streaming, I have to point to the attrition rates in EFI. People only look at the inflow to Core but never seem to look at the other side of the issue which is EFI obviously has all kinds of exceptional kids in the program from day one. The problem is not a predetermined "streaming" by selection. The problem is simply that with no support resources in the EFI program, parents are advised to move their kids into Core. That is the culture that has been fostered for years. A truly radical approach would be to provide the supports that would allow struggling students to stay in EFI and work through their challenges. The only reason we would not take this step is if we didn't consider French instruction important and if that is the case, this whole exercise is moot.

Overall, yes, there is a problem with our current FSL system. We provide all kinds of support in the Core system for struggling students but next to none in the EFI program. It is a forgone conclusion streaming will take place if resources kids in both programs require are only available in one. But the fact is, it can be dealt with quite effectively with the proper program management. Pointing to the inaction of past Ministers is not a valid reason not to try. A generation of children who deserve to experience not only the joy, but the developmental and intellectual growth learning a second language provides. Do not be so stubborn to not admit a mistake has been made here. Look to the obvious solutions to improve the system while maintaining the program that is universally acknowledged as the best way to learn a second language.

First and foremost it must be acknowledged that the EFI program and the "regular" elementary school program do not exist as two separate entities. The existence of the EFI program not only impacts on the other, it dictates the character and the outcomes of its opposite number. Until this fact is recognized, the current arguments for maintaining the status quo are not appropriate. My comments are based on first-hand experience in the elementary school system for over twenty years.

Parents who strongly support maintaining the EFI program for their children can produce both studies and personal anecdotes to show how successful such a program is. It is entirely right and natural that these parents do so - they are advocating for the best for their own children. French Immersion is a well-funded system, supported financially by the entire population within the New Brunswick education budget, and delivers its fine program only to a relatively small, selected group of children. In addition to this advantage, the children in EFI receive a first-rate second-language training, which makes them potentially eligible for any position in the province or indeed in the country, after graduation.

Why interfere with a system which works so well? The answer begins with the statement in the first paragraph. EFI does not exist apart and separate from the "general" education system of New Brunswick. Firstly, the EFI program, though funded by all, is not available to all in the province.

With its initial introduction, many parents of very capable children chose not to enrol their children in Immersion , because they saw it only as the means of acquiring a "second language". Fluency in French was important to these parents for many reasons, but they felt that it was more important for their child to begin his/her education in his/her own first language.

Some parents who tried at that time to have a child enrolled in the EFI program, were turned away, because it was deemed that the child would not be successful there - due to attention-deficit, or another behavioral, learning, or physical difficulty, which would impact on the well-planned and orderly delivery of the system to the EFI class. Each year, a number of children who had been admitted to EFI, were "returned" to the general system (sometimes after a few weeks; sometimes at the end of grade one, grade two, and occasionally, to my knowledge, at the end of grade three). As well, parents whose children entered school from another locality, or from another province without immersion, after grade one, were of course, ineligible to enrol in immersion. Further, children whose parents moved away from the school were not replaced in the immersion classroom, and as a result, the EFI classes became even smaller as they advanced. For these and other reasons, immersion classes offered an elite, desirable program for those inside the program. Meanwhile, the "general" system of elementary education was undergoing huge changes from its pre-immersion days.

One very significant change was the introduction of total inclusion in the schools - a term which had no effect on the EFI, but contributed to a massive alteration in the face of the general classes. The rationale for total inclusion could not be argued with: children with disabilities, mental, physical, or psychological, have the same right to the best education as every other child, and by placement in a classroom, a double benefit will occur. The child with special-needs, in an environment with all levels of ability, gains "role-models", and learns social skills as well as academic ones. Importantly, the rationale continued, this inclusion works both ways in a class - the children who have great capacity for learning easily, and those who have wide general knowledge and experience, are given the opportunity to better understand and empathize with children with difficulties, and to learn to include and befriend them.

Immediately, it could be seen that the "inclusion" rationale worked doubly against the "general" system. Many of the children with the greatest academic and social skills were already removed into the immersion system, leaving an unnatural bell curve in the English class. When the classes were made even larger than before, and now included many more disadvantaged children, the problems with learning in the general classes became acute.

During this time, the program was switched from an EFI to a grade 4 entry for immersion (with the earlier immersion students "grandfathered"). The year that the large all-English grade three classes were to enter either grade 4 French immersion or grade 4 English, there was real anguish of choice among some parents. Some had planned to move their child forward to the newly-opened immersion grade 4, but many more had conferences to confirm that the general grade 4 was to be filled to capacity with all the children with behavioral and other difficulties. Some of these parents made the decision to enter their child into the grade 4 immersion class only after concluding that the alternative was unacceptable. In the immersion class, they would be assured of a much smaller, calmer, focused class, with top students, and in addition they would acquire the enormous advantage of becoming fluently French.

Meanwhile, how did the regular program fare? Except for a very small number, the students with excellent and very good academic ability moved to immersion, and the class left was filled to its maximum with many children who required additional resources and individual assistance.

As years passed, the incentive to enter the immersion program became even greater. With EFI now back at grade one, there is still "streaming". It remains an elite program, where the children who are "in" are very well-served. However, there is no "inclusion" of all abilities, and the opportunities for the children in the general program are diminished by this segregation.

Kelly, you have taken on a massive undertaking. The education system in New Brunswick has to deliver equally to all children, and all children must be given an equal opportunity to learn a second language in this officially bilingual province. I wish you well, and hope that you receive strong support for your proposed changes, both from the people of NB, and from your government colleagues.

don't agree with Minister Lamrock's decision to restructure the FSL programming for, mainly, one reason.

Starting intensive French in grade 5 is too late. Has the government thought about starting it earlier at Grade 1 or 2?

My child is in Kindergarten entering grade 1 so this decision directly affects my family. Her destiny.

We moved our child to a different school within her district in order to have her attend the school we wanted her to keep going in, in order to attend French Immersion (it was very important to us), since all schools did not offer early immersion, now with this decision what does a parent do? I'm not removing her now, I can't from a school she absolutely loves, have 110% involvement in.

BUT! If EI comes back on August 5th I am NOT putting my child into it, for the following reasons..

1) Its only until 2009 to hold it off, I certain the same darn thing will happen next year if not this year, you've decided this already, in my opinion.

2) Its a program that the gov't says does not work, they are convinced it doesn't, why would I put my child into a program that does not work?

3) Funding, even if you do bring it back what happens to our children in the years to come up to grade 5, no gov't is going to give proper funding to a program they "think" doesn't work. Its the child that suffers in this situation.

So for my child, if you bring it back, I will not be putting my child in it.

I say don't bring it back in now, you took it away and trust me you'll take it away again! All this is going to do is mess up school classrooms and the poor teachers have no idea what they are going to do, I feel really bad for them.

This decision should have been made at the beginning of the school year to give everyone time, we (the voters who voted you in) are upset you gave us no choice, you did not consult with us, we voted YOU in to represent US (the people) I feel like I'm being steam rolled, that isn't fair, we are a democratic society, but that only counts when it comes to voting time right?

Mr. Lamrock,

You and your government have acted irresponsibly in your decision to eliminate the early French immersion program. The changes you intend to implement in the education system will not graduate any bilingual children. This is unacceptable in an officially bilingual province.

In the report from the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation in 2002, experts agree that for children in immersion programs, their first language skills did not suffer, on the contrary, first language skills were shown to be enhanced. The study concludes the very positive influence of learning a second language in the cognitive area, but also the positive attitude and understanding it creates for other cultures.

I fully support the Dicks/Kristmanson alternative plan for FSL. All children should be exposed to French language instruction in kindergarten, allowing both children and parents the information necessary to make an educated decision in grade one about which program to enroll their child.

Fred Genesee insists that all children are capable of learning in an immersion program. Even children with learning challenges are able to become bilingual. They will still face their learning disabilities, but it will not hold them back. You need to consider the society you live in, which in our case is bilingual.

Enough resources should be in place to help children succeed, and encouragement given to show parents the benefits of immersion. All children will benefit.

If the next generation of New Brunswick children are not bilingual, that is a dramatic loss of communication between our two cultures.

I urge you to reconsider.

We have moved to New Brunswick from Alberta. We were there for 12 years and our eldest daughter attended French Immersion since kindergarden. Our middle one started in Playschool taking french. This is in a small town called Beaumont. French immersion was always an option which was great because my husband and I really wanted our children to learn french since we both speak and write it too. We both grew up in Bathurst, NB and moved back in October 2007 to bring our children back to their roots of french heritage. There were alot of things to settle moving here and the least of my concerns was having to worry about the french program. As for our two oldest they are allready enrolled in the French Immersion program, which is great! As for our youngest who starts kindergarden in the fall I would really like to see her have the option of learning french also. I think her not having the chance really is to her disadvantage. For arguments sake I really think that kindergarden and grade 1 are the most important years to introduce a new language. My eldest seemed to be doing better in French than in English in the beginning which concerned me. I voiced my concerns to the teacher in Alberta and she assured me that she would catch up. She said that was normal. Now, she is going in grade 6 and I believe it now. She has caught up and she does great in both languages. It just hurts my heart that a french province like NB would have this taken away. Our eldest noticed right away when we moved here that there are a lot of french speaking individuals here in NB. Please keep the program. I really do feel that people who do not want their children to take the option won't enroll their children. As for those who would like to please let them have the choice.

If the government truly cares about increasing bilingualism while improving the streaming problem, the Education Minister should seriously consider the proposal that has been presented by Dr. Joseph Dicks. It is a superior alternative that will benefit all parties' interests.

The Minister has described this phase of the process as a time to see if there are ideas better than the ones that have already come before him. However, for him to assess this correctly, there are some mistaken opinions that need to be dispelled first. Sadly, many of these mistaken opinions have been generated by the broken process surrounding the Croll and Lee Report. In the following essay, I want to focus on one that has appeared since then.

Literacy studies, such as the recent report from the Canadian Council on Learning, have been glibly misquoted in the press and by the education Minister to suggest that New Brunswick's education system is dangerously behind the rest of Canada in producing students that can read and write well. In the absence of a quality study of the French education in this province, this misinformation has been used as a stick to beat early French immersion. In fact, the data from the study show that our education system produces fewer illiterate students than Ontario or even than the national average, and there is no evidence that immersion is impeding our ability to create functional literates.

The error that critics of our education system frequently make is to blame today's education system for the level of illiteracy in the entire adult population. The CCL has a very high standard of literacy, according to which 48% of Canadians are illiterate, and 48% of New Brunswickers, too. However, due to the progress in education in NB, our older population is vastly more illiterate than the younger ones: for instance among those 66 years of age and older, 84% of our population is, by the CCL's definition, illiterate. In fact 44% of all illiterates in New Brunswick are older than 56.

Clearly, to understand how today's education system is working, we need to focus on the youngest age group studied, those aged 16 to 25. Across Canada, 34% of this group is determined to be illiterate in the year 2006. In Ontario, the proportion is 33%; Saskatchewan is 31% illiterate. New Brunswick's youth are 32% illiterate, slightly better than Ontario, slightly worse than Saskatchewan. Encouragingly, New Brunswick's illiteracy rate has fallen in the five years since 2001 by 2%.

It should be noted that the CCL data for New Brunswick combines Francophone and Anglophone results: the subjects were tested in their native language. Because of the well-known disadvantages of a minority language, typically NB Francophones perform worse in literacy tests than Anglophones (e.g., ). We should therefore, if anything, assume that were the data separated by native language, the results for Francophone New Brunswickers would be somewhat worse and the results for Anglophone New Brunswickers somewhat better.

There are a couple of lessons from this analysis. The first is that it is grossly unfair to lay NB's illiteracy at the feet of today's teachers or educational system. If the government truly wants to improve our overall adult illiteracy rate, it should, like other provinces, invest heavily in adult education to remedy the reading and writing skills of older adults, since this is where the highest concentration of illiterates is to be found. (A more cynical approach would be to just wait for the overall provincial improvement that will naturally take place in five years due to these poorer readers being near the end of their lives.) Secondly, and perhaps most important for the current debate, the CCL data offers no evidence that EFI has a detrimental effect on literacy. For one thing, the age groups that have studied in NB while French immersion is in effect are much less illiterate than those who studied when there was no French immersion.

None of this is meant to suggest that we should be complacent about literacy, or that NB's situation, or Canada's situation, is ideal. But it benefits no one when the government and newspapers generate a false sense of crisis around this issue, no one except perhaps the newspapers and the government.

I am very frustrated that the Department of Education has not created a sensible study of these issues and is, in effect, asking the citizens to do it for them. I offer this analysis in the hopes that the Minister will consider these more correct facts in his analysis of the situation. Certainly, I expect him to cease suggesting that the current education system is at fault for the entire number of 295,000 illiterates identified by CCL. He must remember that such misrepresentations are a wholly unfair implicit indictment of the people who teach our children today.

Bravo, Mr. Lamrock. I fully approve your decision to abolish the EFI program.
I don't remember the government having to conduct public consultations involving parents when the program was started. And I don't feel the government should have to conduct public consultations now. I think that students should get a good base in their own language (English) before they are subjected to a second language. Students in today's classrooms cannot read or write properly in either of the official languages.
Neither of my children took the EFI program, and they are managing just fine, thank you very much.

For those of you who would like to know about a much better plan than what the government proposes go see

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

It addresses all of the concerns stated and improves language education without eliminating early second language education, which everybody agrees is the best time for students to learn a second language, the earlier the better.

I support the proposal by Dicks and Kristmanson.
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 1
Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson
University of New Brunswick
Context
The Government of New Brunswick has decided to make changes to its Anglophone educational system in order to (1) increase the percentage of students achieving a functional level of bilingualism, and (2) resolve the problem of students not achieving the desired educational outcomes. We agree with the Government that these two objectives are important for the improvement of the delivery of education in New Brunswick schools. The first objective, to increase the numbers of students achieving functional bilingualism (recently defined by the NB Department of Education as reaching the Intermediate level or above on the New Brunswick oral interview scale), is being addressed through the implementation of Intensive French (IF). We fully support this initiative and based on past research know that it has a positive effect on students' French proficiency in the short term. French programming both prior to and as a follow-up to IF will be crucial factors in the longer-term success of this initiative. As will the identification and development of curriculum materials and the provision of teacher training. The second objective, to resolve the problem of students not achieving the desired educational outcomes, has been immediately addressed by deciding to eliminate Early French Immersion (EFI). We feel that this decision is extreme and unnecessary. The argument that streaming caused by EFI is the major cause of this problem is not supported by evidence. We do believe, however, that EFI should be made as inclusive as possible and we encourage and offer to assist the government of NB to take the measures that are require to make this happen.
An Alternative Plan for FSL in New Brunswick
An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 2
Rationale for Alternative Plan
All three options- Early French Immersion (EFI), Late French Immersion (LFI), and Intensive French (IF) offer unique opportunities for students to reach a certain level of bilingualism. However, because the government has made it clear that it will not support all three options, we feel obliged to propose an alternative plan. The EFI program is the only program that has consistently had approximately one in three students reaching Advanced proficiency. We feel it is extremely important to continue to offer a program option that provides the opportunity for students to reach this level of bilingual success. The Intensive French program has good results in the short term. We believe, however, that Intensive French could be improved to make Intermediate proficiency a much more attainable goal if there were prior French instruction in K-4 and more French language learning opportunities for secondary students.
We also believe that the government's decision to eliminate EFI could result in a substantial increase in the enrolment in Late French Immersion (LFI), and, consequently, produce a serious streaming issue at the middle school level based on academic ability.
We are, therefore, proposing an alternative plan that represents a compromise regarding French Immersion programming.
This plan seeks to address three major concerns of the government regarding FSL instruction and its impact on the school system at large:

1) it contains mechanisms to substantially increase the percentage of students achieving at least an Intermediate level of bilingualism
2) It contains measures to eliminate streaming at the grade 6 level after Intensive French, and to reduce the problem of streaming at the Grade 1 level in EFI
3) it reduces the number of FSL program options thereby freeing up teachers to work in Intensive French
An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 3
In reaching our decision about the structure of this plan we were guided by the following principles:
1) the need to provide a program option that offers the greatest opportunity for bilingualism for students of the widest range of abilities, including students who may struggle academically
2) the need to have a program that provides the potential for a large number of students to reach Intermediate proficiency, with the possibility of attaining a higher level should they choose optional courses at the secondary level
3) the need to have an option for a significant number of students to reach Advanced proficiency in French
4) the importance of learning French and having contact with French culture at an early age Consequently, we propose the following alternative arrangement that involves maintaining the EFI program with some adjustments, as well as establishing an enhanced French second language learning experience for all students who are not in EFI.
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
This plan involves two programs - one leading to Intermediate proficiency and the other to Advanced proficiency. Both involve early exposure to FSL and continuation until Grade 12 Program A. Intermediate Proficiency This route targets Intermediate proficiency according to the NB Oral Proficiency Scale or Level B1 of the European Language Portfolio (ELP).
An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 4
Key Features:
1. An elementary core French program beginning at Kindergarten and continuing to grade 4 using a contextualized and interactive method such as the Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM).
2. An Intensive French semester at Grade 5
3. An enhanced middle years Intensive French follow-up from grades 6-8
4. A core French program from grades 9-12 that includes one basic French language course per year and an optional course for students who wish to further their French language proficiency.
Program B: Advanced Proficiency
This route targets Advanced proficiency according to the NB Oral Proficiency Scale or C1 of the European Language Portfolio.
Key Features:
1. A French Immersion experience in Kindergarten.
2. Early French Immersion at Grades 1 - 3 (90% in French).
3. EFI at grades 4 and 5 at 80%
4. EFI at grades 6-8 at 70%
5. Bilingual high school at grade 9 and 10 at 50%
6. French maintenance at grades 11-12 at 20%
An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 5
ALTERNATE FSL PROGRAM PLAN
Intermediate Proficiency
Advanced Proficiency
Grades 11-12
French Language Maintenance (20% French)
Minimum of 1 Course in French each semester
Grades 9-12
Post-Intensive High School
French
One required course and
one optional course per
year
Grades 9-10
Bilingual Program
(50% French/50% English)
2 Math, 1 Social Studies, 1 Science, 1 French
Grades 6-8
Post-Intensive Middle
School French
Grades 6-8
Middle School EFI
(70% French)
Grade 5
Intensive French
Grades 4-5
Elementary EFI
(80% French)
Grades K-4
Core French using contextualized
and interactive
methods (e.g., AIM)
Grades K-3
Primary EFI
(90% French)
An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND RATIONALE
In order to improve French second language education in New Brunswick, we provide the following ten recommendations for the Department of Education.
Recommendation 1
Move the entry point for EFI to Kindergarten as of September 2009 with a focus on the development of French language skills. This would make the New Brunswick EFI program entry point the same as that of the other Canadian provinces. It would also help parents and children adjust to schooling in French, and would help parents decide if they really wish to pursue this option at Grade 1. It could also alleviate some of the problems of streaming that occur as a result of students being prematurely identified in English Kindergarten as not suitable for an EFI program.
Recommendation 2
Require parents who decide to continue to enroll their children in EFI at Grade 1, as of September 2009, to sign a document that outlines the basic principles of EFI, including parental responsibilities. Signing will indicate that parents are committed to working with their child, teachers, and school administrators to ensure the program works for their child. The document would include an explanation that the Department of Education also commits to provide the resources for students to succeed within the EFI program and that transfers to the English program will only be considered in exceptional cases when all other solutions have been tried and when, in the judgment of French second language and special education learning specialists, a move to English is warranted.
Recommendation 3
Develop a government policy to include and retain as many children as possible from a wide range of backgrounds in the EFI program. This policy should involve a short-term and a long-term plan to address the problem of insufficient support for students in the EFI program who experience difficulty. Short-term initiatives could involve the following:
a) Consultation with French second language learning specialists and teachers who have been working with this issue to identify the An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 7
areas of greatest need and existing "best practices" in this area. One example is to have Anglophone resource teachers working with the classroom teacher to develop a plan for the EFI student while a substitute teacher takes the class for a day or half day - this model was used very effectively in School Districts 6 and 18.
b) Collaboration with the Faculties of Education of the English and French universities in the province to design a short-term, intensive summer program for FSL resource teacher training. One model that could address the problem is a special education team approach whereby a special education Master teacher would work with a team of resource teachers who have special qualifications in special education obtained through an intensive summer program. A longer-term approach would involve the following:
a) Providing existing resource teachers working in schools that offer French immersion incentives to develop and/or improve their skills in French.
b) Providing all pre-service and in-service teachers with training in aspects of special education in order to be able to respond more effectively to those with learning challenges in their classrooms. c) Providing all pre-service and in-service teachers receiving training in dealing with second language learners in their classrooms.
Recommendation 4
Develop a comprehensive, informative document on Early French Immersion for parents that includes, among other things, a clear statement on what is meant by a " good grounding " in one's first language as far as success in French Immersion is concerned. This statement should make it absolutely clear that formal instruction in literacy in one's first language (i.e. knowing how to read and write) is not a condition for success in French Immersion. In fact, the statement should indicate that research demonstrates that students who learn to read and write in their second language attain levels of first language literacy that are as high or higher than unilingual students. (See for example http://www.cpfalta.ab.ca/Learning/experts.htm at Alberta Learning and esAn Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 8
pecially the guide Yes You Can : Information and Inspiration for French Immersion Parents.)
Recommendation 5
Maintain and enforce regulations concerning the development of French literacy skills in grades K-3 with 90% intensity of instruction in French. A strong base in literacy in French in grades K-3 is essential for subsequent development of strong literacy skills in English beginning in grade 4.
Recommendation 6
Adopt, at grade 5, Intensive French preceded by a well-designed K-4 core French program and followed by an enhanced middle school program. At the high school level, offer one compulsory and one optional French second language courses each year.
Recommendation 7
Phase out Late French Immersion beginning Sept 2009. This will eliminate the streaming based on academic ability that occurs in this program. It will also result in a common FSL experience for all students seeking an Intermediate level of proficiency in French. This would also free up teachers and resource specialists from the middle school level to work in Intensive French and its follow-up or in EFI.
Recommendation 8
Provide French second language teachers with opportunities for on-going professional development to enable them to become aware of the latest developments in teaching strategies. A particular focus on a contextualized and interactive approach for the early years core French program (e.g., Accelerate Integrated Method - AIM) and Intensive French would be required. The development of oral fluency and accuracy, as well as the complementary roles of reading, writing, listening and speaking should be an integral part of this professional development.
Recommendation 9
Adapt and adopt the European Language Portfolio as the primary means of assessing students' competency in their second language from the very beginning of their second language learning in school. This portfolio, which focuses on learner self-assessment supported by evidence, allows students An Alternative Plan
Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 9
and teachers and others including prospective employers to determine levels of competence in the four language skill areas and in oral interaction.
Recommendation 10
Design a system of on-going evaluation of the Grade K-4 core French program, of grade 5 IF, and of the post-IF courses. Measure students language competency using an adaptation of the European Language Portfolio beginning in Kindergarten. Interview students, parents, teachers, administrators, and learning specialists to determine strong areas and areas of programming to improve. Set clear, reachable targets for improvement on a yearly basis.
CONCLUSION
We believe that combined with the extra-curricular bilingual activities that the Minister of Education is planning to include in the school system, the proposed combination of two early starting programs that include options for intensive language learning experiences will enable the province to meet the goal of 70% of students graduating from high school with a minimal level of proficiency in French. The addition of a contextualized and interactive program (e.g., AIM) at the elementary level and optional courses in French at the secondary level provide support for the Intensive French experience. Most students should reach an Intermediate level given this three-pronged approach. Highly motivated and capable students will be able to pursue Intermediate Plus proficiency.
The EFI immersion experience will allow for many students to reach Advanced levels of oral proficiency and develop high levels of literacy as well. This program has been in existence for over 35 years and benefits from a wealth of curriculum development, high quality resources aimed at younger FSL learners, established pedagogy for the preparation of new teachers and for on-going PD. Recent initiatives focusing on literacy in the early years are making an impact on the quality of EFI teaching and learning We also believe that eliminating LFI will solve the problem of streaming by ability that occurs at grade 6, and will allow for teachers to be re-deployed in a similar grade and in a program that is not too different from their current experience.
The recommendations regarding the importance of communication and commitment on the part of parents and students on one hand, and teachers, An Alternative Plan Dicks & Kristmanson; May 7, 2008 10 administrators, learning specialists and other professionals on the other hand are critically important to addressing the problem of streaming and transfer-out of EFI.
We believe this alternative plan represents the best possibilities for improving bilingualism and providing a quality education for all New Brunswick children in the Anglophone system. APPENDICES
AIM information
http://www.aimlanguagelearning.com/ NB Oral Proficiency Scale Levels (Intermediate, Advanced) The NB OPI level descriptions can be found at p.86 of the Report Card 2005 at http://www.gnb.ca/0000/anglophone-e.asp.
European Language Portfolio Levels (B1, B2, C1) The European Language Portfolio level descriptions can be found at : http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/?M=/main_pages/levels.html

I am a parent of two girls. I live in a community that did not even offer early French immersion so I have no input on that part of the issue. However, I am greatly concerned about the grade 5 Intensive Core French program. My oldest daughter was part of the Grade 5 intensive French program three years ago when it was a pilot project. She was a good, hard working student with respectable grades going in. Grade 5 and consequently grade 6 were a nightmare for her. I know that they have made some changes to the program since she took part. For her the last part of the year was a nightmare of having to try to catch up on the math they did not take during the first part of the year. She was crying at home and at school because she could keep up the pace they were forced into to complete the curriculum for the year. She got to the point where she was crying not to have to go to school. Apparently now the children will have all classes in French with the exception of math which will be taught in English throughout the year. That is a good adjustment. If she did not have excellent and patient teachers in grade 6 she never would have gotten somewhat back on track. Her grade levels have never again reached the level they were at before grade 5. For her grade 5 was a lost year, the first half being all fun and games they second part a nightmare.

My other child will be going in to grade 5 this fall. I had no intentions of enrolling her in the intensive French program after the struggles her sister when through. She has always struggled in school. She requires extra time to complete her assignments. I am not saying that I don't want her to learn French (my mother was a francophone from Quebec). But she is missing essential skills to manage in the English world as it is. She struggles with English grammar, punctuation etc. To make matters worse her class was not taught French at all this year. You need to have a building block before the child is immersed in French. I am dreading the year ahead as I will not be able to help her at all with her studies. I had no one to converse with in French any more after the passing of my mother and have lost the skill all together. I know the next two years ahead will full of tears and my daughter looking up at me saying "Mommy, I just don't understand." Her teacher this year has grave feeling about the year ahead of her. The parents of children who are struggling or have special needs are not being giving a choice. I thought we lived in a democracy not a dictatorship!

Do the parents of children who live in French speaking community's have their children placed in an English immersion program in grade 5, after getting no instruction on the language, against their parents wishes? I think not.

Personally I think children should have some instruction every day in the second language of their community. IF they chose to gain further instruction later in life to be fluent in that language, they need a building block to step off of. I have never needed the French I was taught in school, which is why it is a skill I have lost. I live in an English speaking community. I have lived in different places in throughout Canada and have never used French any where I have lived. I do not think the same can be said about the children in French speaking community's. They have to learn a second language unless they only live here in New Brunswick in a French community or move to Quebec.

I think parents should have the choice if they want their child in the grade 5 intensive core French program. In this case one size does not fit all.

Mr. Lamrock,

I fully support your decisions for the future of Education in NB. I have a 2 year old daughter that will be entering the school system in the next few years and the changes you are trying to implement give me great hope for her future. Thank you.

I have a son who is entering grade 1 in the fall.

Although I think the plan to go with intensive French in grade 5 was a bit fast and not fully thought out (for example what are we planning to do with the deaf children who had always been exempt from learning French, if they chose, or the children with English class aids?). I think the current plan to do away with early immersion is a good one.

I went to late immersion (grade 7 start) my English skills and academics (as well as those of my classmates) were of a much higher standard than those of my classmates in early immersion. There were however, components of curriculum I missed out on compared to English students as our teachers were so focused on French.

I think as well that by having all students start in English learning abilities and disabilities can be identified before students start learning a second language. As well, having all students try the intensive French, I think there will be more students who choose the late immersion option after being exposed to French that way. I do wonder though if a few hours of French in the lower grades a week would help as well.

I agree that things have changed from when I attended and that now early immersion is a stream of the brighter kids (this stream is the only reason I was considering sending my son to immersion in grade 1). I felt that there would have been less students, less chance of students with exceptionalities to disrupt class and more academically gifted children in the immersion stream, so I was going to send my son.

I am much happier now that he will have the time to get a good grounding in English, and can learn French later. While I think it is important to learn a second language it shouldn't be at the expense of English, nor a good education in general.

I do not support your changes and I will be submitting my suggestions over the weekend. I want this to end so we can all enjoy our summer vacations.

To improve literacy, and test scores, I suggest you look at what District 18 is doing. I read that they are as successful as the top scoring areas in the country. That is right where we want to be. District 18, of course does have EFI, obviously that is not what is making it score better than the rest of the province. So what is? Actually, they have a very high enrollment in EFI - 40% in Fredericton - perhaps the early language exposure is part of what is helping them.

Dear Minister Lamrock,
If you do decide to do away with EFI (and I pray you do not), please take into consideration the families with young children who are in different schools due to EFI not being offered in all schools. Because of where we live, our children are zoned for one school, but at present, if we choose EFI, our child goes to gr 1 EFI at another. Both my husband and I work full time. Our 6 yr old is presently completing grade 1 at a school we are not zoned for due to his being in EFI. Our 2nd child is entering grade 1 at our "in zone school" in the fall, and our 3rd will be entering kindergarten in 3 years. It will be extremely difficult for us to manage our family/household when we have children in different schools. Could you consider "grandfathering in" the younger siblings of an EFI child so that all may attend the same school?