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 believe we need to have the strongest base possible in our first language during our early school years. Once that has been established, english speaking students who want to develop proficiency in French will have access to do so with the revisions to the language program. No one has a crystal ball to foretell what the outcome will be over time but it has a sound basis. If you remain stagnant and never change how is one to know what might be possible?

Recently I had the opportunity to review 4 bursary applications from what appeared to be exemplary graduating students with very strong marks. From the information contained in their applications it appeared that they all had participated in the early immersion program. I found it very interesting and curious to note that the lowest mark, by quite a margin, for all 4 applicants was English. A pretty small sample group but it seems to tell a bit of a story.

My personal opinion, is that Kelly Lamrock has made a terrible mistake withdrawing the Early Immersion Program. Instead of eliminating the program totally, it should be improved.
There are flaws in both the English and French program. Improve them don't completely withdraw one of them. I feel not having the CHOICE any longer to put my children in Early Immersion is wrong. I have one child finishing grade 3 who is speaking and reading both French and English fluently. My other child who is only 2 will not have the same opportunities available when he enters the school system.

New Brunswick is bilingual, what chances will our children have if they stay in their home province for work? Almost every job post "bilingualism is preferred or would be an asset". At a time when we are trying to bring New Brunswickers back home or keep them here, we withdraw the freedom to have the choice for our children. If you want your children to remain in English you have the choice to do so. Why are people so against our children learning a language that is so important to us as their parents. If we choose to put them into French Immersion that choice should be there.

I have listened with much interest to all of the pros and cons in regards to the french language debate. My own opinion is perhaps the same as many people in the province. I believe that all children should have the opportunity to be bilingual. I also believe that they should have all the basics in their mother tongue before teaching them a new language. I say that they should have French taught to them in grades Kindergarten to Four and then have a more intensive program starting in grade 5.I can not stress enough that they need to grasp their mother tongue first.One day these children are going to run our country and they should be given every chance to be the best that they can be. Being bilingual in NB means that you speak both languages equally, don't sacrifice one for the other.

I am in favor of Early French Immersion and enrolled my 6-year old in the program for September 2008. I think a child could master a new language much easier at a younger age than later. I understand there are some challenges in the current education system. But I don't believe eliminate EFI is the solution. As Mr. Lamrock's new plan, there will be no instructed French teaching until Grade 5. Then there is a 5-month intensive French learning period and the parents have to decide if they want their child go for late immersion or not. How do you expect a child to master a new language in just 5 month well enough to use it to learn other subjects? When he is 6 years old, I am confident that he will learn French quickly from school teaching and I can help him excel his other subjects in English. But when he is 11 years old, as a parent with no French background, I worry how I can help him if he faces any difficulties. This will affect him academically. In this case, I might hold back to enroll him into late immersion. Don't you think this new plan will cause more streaming which is one of the arguments which Mr. Lamrock uses to eliminate EFI? I don't think it will help those kids with behavior and learning difficulties but only hold back the kids who are excellent for their learnings. To help those kids with behavior and learning challenges, a more supportive system should be developed within school system. It shouldn't only leave to school and teachers. Parents should be encouraged to be more involved in their children's study as well.

So far I don't have a clear idea on how to improve the situation. But I know clearly that eliminate EFI is not one of them. I think it's very important to think it through, consult with experts and publics, consider all the pros and cons before making a final decision. It needs time! You will have to take longer than 6 weeks to make the decision if you were considering to relocate your home, change your child's school etc. Not mention a decision as important as implement a new education system. If Mr. Lamrock thinks 6 week public consultation in the middle of summer is enough, the only possibility is that he had MADE UP HIS MIND and just plays the political field with court ruling. How do you expect schools to be ready in just 19 business days!

I urge you, Mr. Lamrock, please sit back and take time to develop a better plan to help all the children in NB.

I chose the Core program for my child, who will begin grade one next year, and I do NOT support your experiment. I find it appalling that you are portraying your plan as some sort of magic cure-all for problems in English literacy. If it was a parent's wish for their child to concentrate on English studies, then they had that in the Core program. However, it is an extraordinary leap to say that your changes are going to fix literacy problems in NB. We are supposed to believe that somehow by putting all children in the same mediocre program, literacy is going to improve? There is no reason to eliminate Early French Immersion, and there is nothing whatsoever within the Lamrock plan to improve literacy!

It is truly disgraceful that you are blaming early French Second Language instruction, for the failures of the education system. As you well know, research does not bear that out. According to education expert Joseph Dicks: http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Resources/PDFs/CaseEFIRevised.pdf ,

"On average, there is no meaningful difference in the percentage of students meeting objectives on Grade 2 core English literacy tests in schools that have EFI compared to schools that do not, suggesting that there is no streaming effect.

Eliminating Early French Immersion would result in one less student per class on a Special Education Plan (3.4 students compared to 4.3 students)"

If you were really concerned about streaming, you would address the true culprit which is Late French Immersion. However, according to Joseph Dicks, it is quite likely that your current plan will exacerbate the streaming issue in LFI, based on academic ability. I have noted that comments from teachers, on the "consultation" website, who have encountered difficulty due to streaming, are generally teaching later grades.

I would recommend that you take a look at the alternate plan for education by Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson: http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Resources/PDFs/AltPlan5.pdf . I like what I see in their plan; however, I would like to see the Intensive French program as optional, as was the case in the pilot projects. I would also like to see resources provided to EFI, in order to assess students who have difficulty. Nova Scotia is an example of a province that does this successfully. That would retain students in the program, and not put undue pressure on the Intensive French/Core programs. As someone who chose the Core program for my child, I have been very opposed to the idea of no exposure to French, prior to the implementation of Intensive French in grade 5. I feel that early Core French studies should remain, as they were in the pilot projects. However, the AIM program suggested in the alternate plan of Dicks and Kristmanson, sounds like a great improvement!

I must tell you that if I was given the opportunity again to choose between an untested, piecemeal, Intensive French program, and the proven effective Early French Immersion program, I would choose EFI. I do not approve of the piecemeal implementation of the Intensive French program, which I foresee would adversely affect self-esteem, and grade 5 would be a wasted year.

Your plan has already caused many problems. Families are moving out of NB. French Immersion teachers are moving out of NB. Families are refusing transfers to Base Gagetown, because either their children began FI in another province and they wish to continue it, or they disagree with the mandatory French in grade 5. Apparently, numbers of employees working for McCain's have asked to transfer out of the province. New Brunswick children, who move to another province, will be drastically behind their peers in Core French studies, as they will have had no exposure to it. Doctors have expressed that they will undoubtedly be leaving the province, if the changes to education are not reversed. People have also expressed in the paper, that they would like to return to the province, but they can't now as their children are in French Immersion and they wish to continue that program. Some pro-Lamrock people are saying we should simply open private French Immersion schools. However, why should we have to pay for FI, when every other province provides it as part of their public education system? People will simply move.

If you were truthful, you would admit that you did not propose the elimination of EFI in order to prevent streaming. I have been told that you actually decided to eliminate EFI in order to free up teachers, and resources, to implement the Intensive French program. In order to do so, you have used EFI as a scapegoat. According to the findings of the NB Ombudsman, you went so far as to hire "consultants" to provide a report supporting foregone conclusions. Emails show a conspiracy to doctor the results! You clearly told your department to make EFI look as bad as possible so they could cut it! Public money amounting to $180, 000.00, was wasted on this sham. You have abused your position as Minister of Education, and you should resign immediately!

My comments are two-fold:

First, I strongly disagree with the move to force all students to take intensive French in grade five. The stated goal is to give all students the OPPORTUNITY to become bilingual, but the word opportunity suggests choice, not obligation. We have specifically chosen not to enroll our children in FI because of our personal family circumstances, but now this choice has been taken away. Our only remaining choice, when the time comes, will be to move back out west. Though we would love to stay, we feel our kids are already falling too far behind academically, and that half year loss would be the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.

I have spoken to a teacher who was to be taking on this Intensive French role come September, and she was very reassuring that the students would "get by", they would come away with a very basic french vocabulary. But what about all the other things they should be learning in grade five? How will spending half a year focussing on rudimentary french skills improve english literacy and math and science proficiency? This is yet another example of the various things that take time away from learning the basics, like how to read and write.

Which leads me to my second point, a point that was even made in the discussion paper: there simply needs to be more instructional time available. Coming from out west, I was shocked at how short the school days and the school year are here! And this year, with the introduction of the Community Schools initiative to our school, there have been countless more hours lost to so-called "enrichment activities" (watching a fellow toss a rugby ball while balancing on a BOSU ball?!?!?), hours that could have been spent working on the basics.

With or without FI, with or without streaming, the biggest problem, in my opinion, is there just isn't enough time spent in the classroom doing meaningful work. And I see nothing in the proposed changes to address this (since the time taken away from Core French appears to be dedicated to music and PE).

The decision to cut EFI is probably one of the most ridiculous decisions that I have yet to witness in government. It is the early years that kids are the most succeptible to learning - why would you take that opportunity away?

New Brunswick is the only bilingual province, yet French will not be taught in the schools until grade 5??? This completely defies logic - it is no wonder people are leaving the province.

I for one, am embarrassed to be from New Brunswick!!

I wonder what will happen if the plan to eliminate Early French Immersion does not result in improvement in the performance of New Brunswick students on Canada wide assessments. Of course we won't know until the students beginning school next September complete at least 8 or 10 years of school. And probably the results from the first few years will not be valid as problems such as well developed cirriculums, properly trained teachers and the low morale among teachers faced with serious career disruptions are resolved. If it then shows that New Brunswick is at or near the bottom on the Canada wide assesments, then what??
I also would like to know how long New Brunswick has been doing so poorly on educational assessments. Were they performing better before French Immersions was introduced? What about the changes in disciplinary procedured brought about by the Charter Of Rights. Was there any change in the performance of students in the years following that?? What about inclusion policies? Inclusion was introduced in the early 90's. Did performance increase or decrease? Another change in the early 90's was the elimination of vocational courses in high schooland the increase in computer courses. What affect did that have on the performance of New Brunswick Students compates to those in other provinces. My point is that there have been many significant changes in the learning environment and subjects taught in schools since 1970. Why has Early French immersion been picked out as the cause?

We all understand that no two people are born the same---we all learn at our own pace, in our own time. Some people are strong in math, others excel in literate and the arts. For others, mechanics and working with their hands is their passion. All children should be given a chance to find their path in the world, and our education system should be there to provide the resources and mentors to guide our children.
I am the parent of two children in EFI. My youngest child excels in all areas and has just completed grade one. She can hold a conversation in french with her francophone friends, as well as read in English. My son is in grade 3 and is on a Special Education Plan, due to Autism Spectrum Disorder and a Non Verbal Learning Disorder. He is one of the children who "do not exist" in EFI. He has had struggles, but all the experts note that he would have the same struggles in the English programmming. We have been told that he would have a resource teacher in the English System, but they are unavailable for him in EFI. However, he is challenged in EFI and has learn to read write and speak a second language. The pride he feels far outweighs the struggles he has faced.
Mr. Lamrock, you have been given an enormous task, to bring up test scores, to finance resources without the finances, and to make the education system stronger. You have stated many times that the English system is in trouble. The EFI system, however, is not. Please, for the sake of all children, do not eliminate a program that works for a quick fix to boost test scores and a short term solution. My children's EFI classes are larger than the English classes of their peers---economic, social, and intellectual streaming is not present, and the children, as diverse as they are, have learning to appreciate the joy of learning. To take this away from the children of NB for the sake of a band-aid solution is a grave mistake.
When these children grow into adults, the test scores from their Grade 2 year will not matter to them, their education will.

Perhaps I am simply not an overly intelligent person but to me it seems quite simple: If you can't handle EFI than you don't take it or you don't put your child in it. Not everyone can handle level 1 math so should we remove it for those that can? By having english, french and french immersion the choice is there for everyone.

I have a sister who graduated pure french, a brother who graduated pure english and I graduated from the EFI program. Each of us had different capabiities but at least my parents had the choice. What a shame to take it away from the children who can handle it because others simply can't.

I strongly disagree with the decision of the Minister to abolish French second language education for children in grades K-4. I am particularly opposed to the abolition of early French immersion, and I also have serious concerns about the plan for FSL in grades 5 and up. Research demonstrates and experience in other places supports that EFI is not a cause of streaming, nor is it a cause of poor literacy, quite the opposite. Competence in a second language improves literacy in the first, it is an essential skill in today's world, be it for purposes of global citizenship, work or leisure. The very best way to learn a second language is to start early, preferably in Kindergarten, but Grade 1 is acceptable. Inclusion is a good goal, the way to achieve it is to adequately fund and support the programming options in the system, not to cut out the most desirable programs. The latter is dog in the manger equality and will help nobody. I therefore support the plan put forward by Prof. Joe Dicks and would ask that it be posted immediately so that it can be considered by others. The current consultation process is wholly inadequate and I have no faith whatsoever that a Minister who has been found by the Ombudsman to have engaged in an unfair process and to be acting contrary to a court order can be entrusted with our most valuable gift: our children. I have no faith that Mr. Lamrock is approaching this issue with an open mind, nor do I think he is capable of acting fairly. I agree that the education system needs improvements, and I urge that the basis for improvements be sound research, thorough public debate using the Premier's principles for public engagement and not a facade of consultation for six weeks when many are away on holiday. In closing, I want to express that I am appalled by the fraud committed by the Minister on the public in the socalled Croll and Lee Report as has been revealed by the Ombudsman's investigation. An officer of the Crown has no business deliberately deceiving the public and using tax payers' money to do it and the Premier must act to replace this Minister with a knowledgeable, trustworthy and democratically minded individual.

1st off I am for the retention of EFI, as my earlier post seems to have been modified to fit someone elses agenda.
The process you are taking is wrong so wrong that it is a sham and you sir should be ashamed at the methods you will go to to arrive at your predetermined result.

Dear Mr. Lamrock:

I certainly hope you are proud of your decision to eliminate EFI. You have successfully opened up wounds that have been long healed between Francophone and Anglophone residence in this Province. Many years ago, when the EFI program was not so flawed, (which by this I mean it can be fixed and does not need to be eliminated) thousands of young New Brunswick men and women were graduating out of this program with a strong bilingual status. After several years of graduating bilingual Anglophone students from the EFI program, the word in the Universities and in the employer community was that Anglophone students were coming out of the EFI program more bilingual than Francophone students were coming out of their school system. So my question now is, why all of a sudden does the Education Department want to cancel the EFI program instead of fixing it? Could it be that they are getting pressure from a large part (but not all) of the Francophone community to slow down on teaching Anglophone students French so well, as it is hurting their Francophone children when it comes to University entrance and in the job market? This is a sad state of affairs you have put this Province in and you and your colleagues will most certainly pay for it in the 2010 election.

As a professional who works with children, I was first of all surprised to hear of the thinking that it is somehow preferential to delay children's learning of a second language until later grades. There are lots of data in the scientific literature to indicate that children acquire a second language easier when younger. Secondly, when I heard that the report upon which the decision to end EFI programs had been discredited by prominent scientists, I was even more surprised to hear that Minister Lamrock was intending to proceed as initially proposed. This is such an important decision affecting the future employment prospects and livelihood of Anglophone children! I am puzzled at the rush to make this drastic change without more consideration. I've known of government departments to take months to decide on something as trivial as the color of paint in new offices yet this important matter is pushed through seemingly in a matter of weeks with no real input from parents. Furthermore, despite a Court order to provide due process to parents, minimal time is given for consultation and at a time when people tend to be away on vacation or busy entertaining summer company. Is this in the spirit of the Court's order? Additionally, how can schools possibly make the staffing changes that would be required if the decision to abolish the program is reversed? This begs the question, has the decision to not reverse the original plan already been made? In my opinion, such actions jeopardize the credibility of the Minister and present him to the public as dismissive of the legitimate concerns of citizens. Therefore, I am asking that the Minister consider the spirit of the Court order and the concerns of citizens and reasonably delay the plan to abolish the EFI program for an additional year. This would allow full consideration of the matter and provide him with the opportunity to more fully advise the public on the rationale behind the decision making while taking public concerns into account.

In the interest of full and thorough consultation on the EFI issue, as ordered by the judge, and as the Minister of Education appears to have promised, it is essential that the Dept. of Education make available online ALL commissioned reports ASAP.

It is important for the public to see unfiltered who has recommended what and why.

I look forward to seeing these reports posted on your website well before July 25, 2008.

As an educator, I recognize that there are serious problems that need to be addressed in the school system at all levels. The greatest concern as a high school English teacher is the number of students in my class who have somehow missed out on some of the basics of writing and reading. Fluency in a language means to not only speak the language but to write with clarity and to read with understanding; many students lack this when they reach high school. There are a number of reasons: social promotion, poor attendance especially in high school, lack of parental involvement, and streaming which starts in elementary. I feel strongly that EFI is one of the causes of this streaming which hurts students in Core classes and I also feel that students in EFI are also missing out on some of their fundamentals with English literacy, spelling, and grammar. The strongest students I teach, in general, are students who have gone through LFI.

The current system needs to change. Is eliminating EFI a step in the right direction? I believe it is. Is it the only step needed to improve the literacy of our students? No. The entire system needs change and change to the elementary system is the best place to start. I have been following closely the debate as it has been playing out in the media and what worries me about those who are so vocal against the proposed removal of EFI is that they seem to place EFI above all other subject areas. There is no question that learning a second language is a wonderful thing, but learning that language cannot be done by a minority to the determent of the majority, which is the way things are currently. The basics of literacy and numeracy must be mastered by all before a second language is considered.

I support the changes Mr. Lamrock proposed in March. I also hope the Minister is willing to tackle the issue of social promotion which has added to the SEP nightmare many teachers face and also address concerns over very poor attendance in high school for a growing majority of students.

In closing, recent announcements concerning art, music, physical education, and industrial programs are all very positive steps in the right direction.

My concern with this 'change process' is that I don't think that you have been completely transparent with your goals.

My child is entering Grade 9 in the fall, having spent their entire school career in French Immersion (the first three years - pre-school through Grade 1 - in Alberta). While they are on track to graduate with 'Advanced' second language capability, I don't believe that the current high school programs can sustain that progress, much less add the elements required for further development. I believe this is where the current Early Immersion program fails to meet its stated goal. I have heard very little debate on that aspect.

Secondly, I have not seen a declaration of what the goals of the new proposal will be, and I don't believe that the proposed program will ever be capable of creating Grade 12 graduates with 'Advanced' capability.

I'm left with the impression that you are watering down the previously stated goals, rather than provide the resources required to meet those goals. You have goals you can't meet with the resources you have, so amidst all the fine talk about quality education for all, you are lowering your targets.

As two working professional parents who moved from Ontario, where we had every opportunity for an EFI education for our children, but instead chose to immerse our children in a bilingual community as well as in their education, and moved to Moncton for our oldest son to start Kindergarten three years ago, we are completely humiliated (for the sake of all New Brunswickers)and outraged by the fact that we may now have to move back to an English province to offer our children French instruction.

The Liberal Government in New Brunswick has sited a major part of their economic development plans for the future of New Brunswick includes not only investment attraction but people attraction. Their strategy is to attract Canadian professionals to the area and to attract immigrants. With the plan Minister Lamrock is trying to implement, immigrants may move here with children in grade four, immerse them in learning English, give them a 2 month summer break, then force them to learn French in grade 5?
As for attracting more professionals, Minister Lamrock tells us that it is the "elite" professionals' children who are in EFI. What professionals in other parts of the country are going to agree to take their children out of an EFI education program that is portable across any province they choose to live, and move them to an isolated education system with no French instruction whatsoever until grade five? This is our key asset in New Brunswick - we are a bilingual province. I fear that if we wait until grade 6 to decide if our children should be enrolled in immersion, it is a tougher battle we are going to have convincing our 12 year old children to make the switch. A lot is going on with children when they are this age, and any steps toward being different and further alienation will be a tough sell. I fear that fewer children will choose French immersion. As a result, fewer will be able to stay here in New Brunswick to go to university, and to later become employed here. More loss of skills, more loss of our own. More out migration. With all of the effort so many New Brunswickers have been making to make NB a better place to live, in the face of all the challenges that we must rise above as a province of our size, with a dispersed population, out migration and the decline of the forestry industry, why would we dilute such a key asset? Why would we stack one more card against us and devise an education system with little or no portability?

Lets acknowledge that NB likely has the highest EFI participation rates in the country. Honestly, I don't know the statistics, but I think I recall hearing that we do have among the highest EFI participation rates....if that's the case, isn't that a wonderful thing? Isn't that part of what makes NB great? Aren't we proud of the fact that New Brunswickers, more than in any other province, choose to offer their children a bilingual education?

Mnister Lamrock highlights streaming as the main driver for eliminating EFI. Why then does his education system stream the children? Why does the system not provide support services to both programs? Currently parents are strongly pressured to remove their children from the EFI program if they are experiencing any difficulty whatsoever in school. The difficulties may be completely independent of the language of instruction, but if a parent wants any extra support for their children, they are advised they have to switch to the English program to receive it.
I heard a parent of a severely disabled child who is entering grade 5 this September, who has several support workers, none of whom can offer their services in French, ask Minister Lamrock what she is to do this September with her daughter. Minister Lamrock assured her that exceptions will be made in extreme circumstances. So.....he will stream? Except now it is with a group of severely disabled children in severe circumstances who will be isolated?
Yes, of course streaming negatively impacts learning outcomes, and lets stop the streaming. Lets provide the support necessary to help our kids succeed in whatever program they choose.

Minister Lamrock says the status quo is not ok. Is ok for all our children in the French schools? Is it ok for those children to continue to be educated in the lowest performing education system in the country? Are their test scores low because of the streaming in the English schools? Given that test scores are low in both the French and English schools, could there just possibly be other factors contributing to our outcomes?

Here are my humble suggestions, and thanks for finally asking (or thank you to the courts for forcing Minister Lamrock to finally ask us):

1. We take a look at test scores. Where are we performing low? What other provinces are performing low? Look at the commonalities across the low performing provinces. What factors do we all share that could be contributing to the low test scores? What similarities in funding, allocation of support services, curriculum, curriculum delivery, and a whole host of other factors do we have in common with the other low performing provinces?
Look at the highest performing provinces. What are they doing differently? How does their funding per student compare to us and the other low performing provinces? How do they allocate support services? How are our educators and administrators trained, and compensated differently than the high performing provinces? What are class size ratios? What are their support needs and support services ratios per class? Are there things we can replicate?
2. Develop a consortium across the low performing provinces to share the costs of these assessments, and share the learnings, experiences, innovations and ideas. Have the consortium reach out to the high performing provinces to have members from these education systems participate in the consortium to share their experiences and strategies. Invite a diverse representation of experts to participate on the consortium: language professionals, child development experts, child psychologists, and parents with children in EFI, parents with children in the English program, parents with children in the French schools. (many of these will be the experts from the list above.)
3. Are there global best practices we can learn from? What are countries in Asia and Europe doing to successfully educate so many multi-lingual children? Can we replicate some of it here in our uniquely bi-lingual province?
3. Devise an action plan.
4. Take the time to do it right.
Minister Lamrock has told us the severity of the current situation in our education system. It is my humble opinion, but I don't see how it can all be solved in six weeks. Taking the time to get it right will be worth the wait. He says the status quo is not an option for this year. Well, with his proposed plan, he is keeping the status quo for all the kids in French schools, and all kids in English schools in Kindergarten, grades 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Holding off another year and not implementing changes for kids in two grades in English schools, will be well worth the wait, when a proper, coordinated strategy is developed.

I am shocked and appalled at the govt's decision to abolish EFI. I feel the gov't is trying to place the blame for the problems in our educational system on Immersion, when the real issue is not enough resources and teaching support in the classroom. Experts have consistantly supported EFI as the best way for children to learn a second language. In response to comments that the progam doesn't work because of the drop out rate in high school, I would say it's because delivery of immersion at that level needs to be improved. Changes must be made so students have more course selection and something done so kids don't feel they have to drop out to maintain higher marks for university entrance. I would like to see exit interviews performed on children after completing Grade 1-8 in EFI. You would get a true measure of student's french proficiency at that time. Many of these children leave the program because the parents and students are satisfied with the level of their french and don't want to continue in high school for the reasons already mentioned.
Early Immersion has worked for my child and I am saddened and disappointed that others will be unable to benefit from it. Learning a second language should be a choice available to all children in our bilingual province - the earlier they start the better. I do not support Intensive 5 as an option.

Only in NewBrunswick? I can't beleive it. After many years of progressing forward we are now ready to take a giant step backwards. Lucky for me my children are going into grade 5 and 6 french immersion. This decision will not directly affect me. I do have serious sympathy for those with young children entering school. They will now go for years without the opportunity to learn french. This is not acceptable. I live in Woodstock and there is no french school. What does a francophone family in this area do? At least with french immersion they had a chance to speak in the language of their choice. Now they don't even have that chance until grade 5.
I can tell you one thing, the provincial liberals are making a serious mistake with this decision. This will come back to haunt them at the next election.

Many of the comments currently posted do not seem to be offering up suggestions on how to help make our province's students perform better overall ~ math, literacy and second language skills all need improvement! Once again, parents are choosing to vent and complain without offering ways to improve our current failing system which I believe was the intent for this forum. A drastic change is required within the current system!

Here is my suggestion.
Since we are supposedly a truly bilingual province and currently offer both a French and English education system, I would suggest that parents be given the choice to choose which education system they wish to enroll their child within (without the initial language criteria currently blocking these choices). All children/parents should be able to choose the French system or the English system at initial point of entry.

K-12 curriculum should be taught in the language of the system chosen with "some" exposure to the 2nd language (English in French schools and French in English schools) from K through to 12. This exposure could be offered through cultural activities and/or blocking weekly time slots that focus on the language. At the Grade 5 level an Intensive "French" or "English" program could be mandatory within each of the systems. Students should continue on through to Grade 12 in an "enriched" version of the current core programs being offered. Throughout the K-12 year's math and science programs should be taught in the choice language.

Students/parents could then be given the option after graduation to enroll in a one-year total immersion program for an additional year of public schooling (Grade 13) ~ 5 days a week for 10 months. The funds associated with the current Immersion programs can be redirected to this additional year of schooling.

In my opinion this is a win-win situation for everyone!

I am in favour of the proposed changes regarding fsl changes in NB schools with the exception of eliminating core french.

Minister Lamrock,
Pls. review Dr. Dicks' "Alternate Plan to FSL." It is based on sound research from FSL experts. Also, if you do decide to eliminate EFI (hopefully not), please consider the families with more than one children, who already have one in the EFI system, at an out of zone school due to EFI not being availble in their zone. Parents should be able to have all of their children in one school, without having to worry about applying for alternate placement. Also, pls. do not take away our choice to educate our children in a second language. Add more resources to the EFI program, take out the LFI program, and implement intensive core, but start it earlier (gr 1)

Like everyone posting comments I have strong feelings on this subject and mine are to support keeping the EFI.
I have a step daughter enrolled in EFI who is going into grade 8. I would like my son (who will hopefully begin French this fall) and my daughter to have this same opportunity. I think that at age 5 I can have a greater impact on which path they choose to travel. When my children reach the wonderful teenage years I anticipate more resitence! This is not to say that I would not still encourage them to take the path that would allow them more opportunities (especially in a bilingual province) however I also have the foresight to recognize that peers, sports and the desire to just have fun might outweight the quest for higher learning at age 11. Even at Mr Lamrock's wiser years April 6th still seemed like a great idea (that would be what like 10 years their senior!).
My husband and I are both products of French programs, himself early, myself late. He is far superior with his abiltiy to communicate in French. From his accent to his smooth transition, it is something I can not compete with as he had a 6 year head start (and trust me I rarely state his ability to out manouver me!).

I fully agree that core French should not be removed!!! I also agree that if a manditory FI is to take place it should be earlier like grade 1 or K.
To throw a class room of children into a language where they can not even count seems like you are changing the dynamics of the trials you are basing these majors changes! Very unrealistic considering the streaming.

I do not see how French holds us back from accademic excellence or from our enhanced programs. The rest of the country offers second languages and yet they out preform us, letting us know it is posible.

I do not see how this program streams children! It is made available to all children. It may mean a longer bus ride. It may mean more homework. It is a choice!

To address those opposed to EFI your option is simple. Do not choose it. I do not want to force you into EFI do not force me out of it!

My blame for the state of our education system does not lie soley with the government. I think the schools should send more work home. I think that part of the problem lies with teachers having to slow a class down on the account of a few students that make it impossible to carry forward.

I think that if a student does not make the mark they should be held back until they master the tasks! If we are allowing the alarming statics of illiterate people to graduate how does that happen!!! Hold them in grade 2 to learn how to read at proper levels! That being said any sports team should have min mark levels. Star athlete or not you must tow the line. Have team tutor sessions need be!

Art and Phys-ed and music are important! Incorporate them! If needed have clubs at lunch and after school! There are many ways to keep children involved just look outside the box. Present us with other options!

I trust that Mr Lamrock will do the right thing and work within this program! Put supports in place! Make parents accountable and we will rise to the occassion.

Thank you for doing the right thing!!

I am an FSL teacher who has taught in the core, intensive french and early immersion programs. I am also a late immersion graduate myself with superior level French proficiency, attained later in life.

I think that there are a lot of people who have many comments and perceive it to be their 'right' to have certain programs and to tell education professionals how things should be done. Please consider that most of us would not tell our mechanic how to fix our car, our doctor what medicine to give us, or the sales associate how to use the register.

I can share what I know to be true 'from the front lines.' As for the FSL programs:

Core French does not work, not even the new AIM program. There is simply not enough time to teach the kids to speak French. Learning French this way is like the analogy of filling up a bathtub one drop at a time over 4 years. Evaporation gets to the water before you can ever fill up the tub. Intensive French is a good replacement for this and frees up time wasted in the earlier grades on core French for enrichment and furthering knowledge and ability in English.

Early immersion does work. I don't think anyone can dispute that students who remain in this program and succeed become bilingual. It may well be the 'Cadillac' of FSL programs but just like a real Cadillac, only a few can 'afford' it. Late immersion also works. I don't think anyone would dispute that students who remain in late immersion and succeed become bilingual. The real deal is: If YOU don't use it then YOU lose it, and you can't blame the age at which you started learning a new language for your lack of facility with it. Just because your child takes early (or late) immersion does not guarantee that they will be bilingual when they are 25, getting out of university and looking for a job. They have to keep up the effort and practice, and believe me, it won't make any difference what age they were when they started to learn French.

The dispute over the age at which you start to learn a language is a moot point! The point is learning the language and being MOTIVATED to continue to learn it and use it in real-life situations. Sure, the best option is to learn a second (or even a third or fourth) language before the age of two or so, because that is when phoneme distinction (the ability to make and distinguish sounds) becomes cemented in the brain. Do an internet search and you'll see. So age 5 or 6 is already 'too late' to have the true French accent that so many seem to be concerned about. After the age of 2, it is mainly effort and utilization that makes the difference in learning a new language with fluency and accuracy.

There are numerous examples of early and late immersion graduates who lost their bilingualism. Many also exist who maintained their bilingualism, from both programs.

Honestly, I can say that I preferred teaching an early immersion class. The class was smaller, I had virtually no Special Education Plans to deal with, more helpful and involved parents, and generally strong performers. I understand that many parents want their children to be in have the upper hand in our currently unequal system- as they should. Because they are parents, they want what's best for their children, not for all children. I applaud Mr. Lamrock for taking a stand and looking out for all of New Brunswick's children.

I graduated this week from high school after completing twelve years in the Early Immersion Program. When it was first announced that this would be removed, I immediately decided that, when the time comes for me to have children, if Early French Immersion is not offered I will be moving to another part of Canada. Although I am only 18 years of age, my bilingualism has already provided me with many opportunities throughout my highschool years. I was selected to go on an exchange to Ottawa in the Fall with students from all across Canada and was able to communicate and connect with all of them because I am able to fluently speak in both officiall languages. My ability to speak French also got me a job working at a tourist information center last summer. Being able to speak French has also allowed me to provide excellent customer service to all of the customers that come through my cash at the grocery store where I work.

These may not seem like huge accomplishments, but I feel that this is only the beginning of the doors that my bilingualism will open for me. With New Brunswick being Canada's only bilingual province, it seems only right that our youth are provided with every opportunity that will help them succeed. I believe that every child raised in New Brunswick deserves to be given the advantage that I was. Their parents need to be given the ability to decide what is best for their children.

For me, the French Immersion Program has proven itself to be a huge success, and I do not regret going through it in the least. It has been said that very few people that go through the French Immersion program leave high school being able to speak efficiently in French, but I stand here to prove that wrong. Early French Immersion has been a huge success for my friends and I, and we would do it all over again in a heartbeat.