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.

We were very disappointed to hear about the French Immersion program. We have lived in New Brunswick for only nine months coming from Nova Scotia. Our oldest started Immersion there at grade Primary and is doing very, very well. Our second child would have been starting Immersion here in grade 1 (just finished kindergarten). Imagine our surprise to find that Canada's only Bilingual province is no longer supporting the Immersion program and both our children will not have the same benefits.
My family is of Acadian origin and it saddens me to see that the French language will not be passed on through all members of our family. This decision was made too hastily without all the facts.

Back in my mother's youth (the 1940s in rural NS) education was standard and universal: everyone in a community, regardless of age, gender, socio-economic status or ability, attended the same one-room school house and received the identical schooling in reading, writing and arithmetic. Some children excelled, others did not. This was not generally thought to be the fault of the school system or the curriculum. In the intervening 60 years or so, however, we have discovered that students actually learn at different rates and in different ways and that if we provide them - and their parents - with choices in education, they have a much better chance of reaching their potential. This in no way has softened our belief in universal access as the bedrock of public education, quite the contrary. That's why the other provinces in Canada offer as broad as possible a range of publicly funded education programs and supports, from reading recovery and special ed classes to fine arts high schools and French Immersion. Because their education departments recognize that public education needs to be flexible and varied in order to be truly universal.

Imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on anglophone education in NB seems like an oddly backward move in a province that is already behind, as the government's discussion paper suggests, in so many fundamental areas, such as math and literacy. While no one with a child in EFI or LFI in NB would deny that these programs could be improved (most notably in terms of access, particularly in rural districts, and methods and resource support for struggling immersion students), the decision to cancel a program that has a proven success rate for 30% of students (with nearly half of them reaching advanced proficiency in French) in order to enforce a province-wide pilot of an Intensive French program, which has virtually no track record of graduates anywhere, seems to me over hasty and possibly foolhardy. (I have had children in the NB system long enough to remember Foundation Years, another one-size-fits-all solution to NB's poor test scores that was rushed in without proper consultation, causing disruption all around.)

I feel especially for special needs and ESL students who will now be compelled to do intensive French or seek some kind of special "exemption," separating them from their classmates for half their grade 5 year. I also feel for those students who would flourish with the challenge of learning a second language in elementary school but who will now be offered nothing until grade 5 and then only a watered-down LFI program with reduced proficiency expectations. And this in a bilingual province, with all kinds of jobs requiring French, that frets about losing its youth to Alberta.

What has disappointed me most in the debate of the last few months has been the spin doctoring that this government has engaged in. Initially, EFI was criticized for not producing enough graduates. Now the government is claiming that it is the cause of "segregation" in our schools. According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, "segregation" is "1. enforced separation of racial groups in a community; 2. the act or an instance of segregating; the state of being segregated; 3. an area of a prison where inmates are isolated from others." To describe an educational choice open to all parents (though affected by Department of Education restrictions in rural areas and poorly served with resource teachers) with a term that most of us associate with the segregated "white" and "black" schools of the American south is an insult to all parents and students in NB.

My recommendation: Abide by the court decision and reinstate EFI for the 2008-09 school year. Commission a real study to replace the now widely discredited Lee Croll Report. Don't scapegoat one program or curriculum per se but look at the bigger picture, including both the francophone and anglophone systems and issues like class size, teacher training, and decent support for inclusion. And please don't use phys ed and music as a carrot for getting rid of quality FSL instruction. This is just another insult to parents.

I strongly disagree with French only being introduced in grade 5, as I know first hand how difficult it is to learn French later in life. I did have one French class from grade 1 to 6, however the French teacher was very inadequate and so we spent most classes participating in coloring contests and playing a game called seven up. I then enrolled in French Immersion in grade 7 which was extremely difficult for me. Being an Anglophone with two English parents I had little help with homework and because of my lack of French training from early years in school I struggled a great deal, which in turn made me feel as if I was unintelligent and unable to succeed. When I entered high school in grade 10 I decided to go back to English and not to continue with French Immersion. I feel that only introducing a child to French in grade 5 will result in more frustration and self esteem issues for the child. I am grateful that I was able to obtain a government job being an Anglophone, but now I am at a crossroad where I cannot go any higher in my career because of this. I do not have the confidence to try to learn this language again as I feel I was put through enough humiliation in junior high trying to learn French.

As a parent who has one child enrolled in EFI (just completed grade 3) and another child registered for EFI in 2008, I have put a concerted effort into trying to understand all aspects of this debate.

My son has done well in EFI having just completed grade three. His comprehension of both languages has been excellent in all subjects and I feel very grateful that we made the choice to enter him in EFI.

Despite his success in the program, I do not dispute the observations that have been made that the EFI system needs change. I have witnessed parents "self-streaming" their kids because they anticipate them needing support or resources in their learning and know that they will not have access to them in the EFI program. To me, that is the wrong reason to not select EFI for your child.

I do not believe however, that the proposed changes will realize the improved outcomes that have been touted.

I firmly believe that the intensive french at grade 5 approach has strong merits. However, the success of the pilot program in intensive french has already been compromised by the removal of core french in grades 1 to 4. The results of the pilot program were based on students that had core french for four years before their participation in the pilot - there would be no logical way for the same level of outcomes to be realized when the group of students entering the program do not have the same background of learning in the core program.

In addition, given the opinion expressed by the Dept. of Education staffer in the Ombudsman's report who felt that we have not followed the pilot through far enough to truly understand 'why' intensive french works, I feel it is patently unfair to assume that our children will benefit from these changes in the long run.

When the review of FSL was launched I was prepared to accept change, however given the number and depth of professional, educated opinions that have been voiced about flawed assumptions and conclusions, I remain very concerned about the proposed changes.

I would urge the Minister to strongly consider re-enstating some form of core french from grades 1 to 4 - the status quo wasn't working but that does not mean that it was all bad. At least allow my six year old to have some core french prior to entering the intensive french program that had such great success with other core french students.

I have 2 kids that have gone from kindergarten to finishing university. They both needed to drop out of the French program in high school in order to select courses for university entrance requirements. My kids would show in your report as failing to complete the program. This past summer they travelled to France and communicated just fine. I think that the present system although not perfect still does a good job of introducing students to a second language. You should be looking at taking the good from the present program and removing the bad. Then your reported numbers will make more sense.
How to fix the problem:
1. Teach the French language early, before pear pressure makes it impossible to get it done Grade 5 isn't the time to impose more social issues on kids.
2. Teach the math, sciences; in the child's mother tong because that is the language that they will probably continue in secondary education.
3. Allow a fuller immersion in grades 5 to 8 to get the required subject mater taught to kids and test them prior to entering high school.
4. In high school let them prepare for university with out running your numbers and having to deal with second language training.

As for the special needs and slower kids, if you must include them in the regular class rooms invest the resources needed to properly assist them in learning at the same speed as the mean of the class in order not to impede the progress of others.

I firmly believe that if you ask grade five kids to speak a different language at the same time as the male female issues are flaring you are placing extra social pressures on a already thought age. This alone could completely destroy your chances of success with total emersion in grade 5.

I am sure that the above solution isn't that perfect solution however with my limited training I think it might be a good starting place to build from.
Just my 2 cents worth!

Dear Mr. Lamrock, I am writing this letter to indicate my strong support of the French Immersion program in our elementary schools. My daughter is just finishing grade eight and she has been in French Immersion since kindergarten. My son is just finishing grade two in French Immersion, which he began in Grade One. In both cases, my children have thrived in this environment. My daughter reads in French, but she also enjoys reading novels in English and she has very strong literacy skills, as well as numeracy skills.

My concern with the system will begin in September when she begins high school at Sussex Regional High. It is well known that the school struggles to meet the standards necessary for our children to graduate with their French Immersion status intact. I believe this is an important place to begin reforms. High schools need to provide varied and comprehensive course offerings in French so that students can keep their French as they are integrating into more English-based courses. It is often not possible to take the courses needed to attend university and fit the correct French classes into their schedule. I am shocked that this has not been addressed. Many high schools in the province are struggling to have the correct number of courses and are often going years without them. Of course the result is graduates who are leaving secondary school outside of the French Immersion system they worked so hard in for elementary and middle school. They are not being provided the courses to keep it!

I was shocked to hear from the New Brunswick ombudsman that there is concrete proof that your decision was made before the report by Croll and Lee was released. I am not a fan of this report and I do not believe that either writer was qualified to pass judgment on our education system. It also seemed that your wide-ranging changes immerged much too quickly after the report's release. It left me with a deep fear that money-saving was the true goal behind your changes, not the creation of the best education system for our children.

I believe that things in our education system must change, but I also believe that our children deserve changes that are well thought-out, by experts from within and outside of the province. We are constantly comparing our children's progress with other provinces and countries. If others are doing better, shouldn't we find out what they are doing that we are not? I know that in some European countries, children are graduating from high school with multiple languages. How are they able to do this? Let's find out!

Mr. Lamrock, I am asking you to back away from your sweeping changes and acknowledge that our system needs changes, but that those changes are so very important that they deserve more time. I'm not asking for the status quo, I'm asking that we make the needed changes with thought, study and consultation.

Is there anything more gut-wrenching for a NB parent than the question of immersion? Just speak with a few parents and you will quickly receive the full spectrum - early, intensive, late, working, not working, best to worst decision ever....everything is out there. While it is true that the system we are about to change had many strengths and successes, it is equally true that it had just as many failures. The NB government seemed to have reached a point where they had to do something and no matter what was chosen it was going to be controversial. I do not condemn Kelly Lamrock for trying to find a better answer. The percentage of NB immersion students graduating with a functioning level of French is abysmal. There must be something better out there and at least the Intensive French approach has been studied in other provinces with promising results.

A word of caution though for Mr. Lamrock. For immersion to work it must exist outside of school alone. It is the key to why the vast majority of Francophone students are fluentely bilingual. With the stated intent of strengthening children in their mother tongue first, with introducing French for all in Gr 5 in the hopes of reducing streaming, the government still has definite areas where it could promote and support immersion within our communities and homes. Government support for Immersion Camps for all ages, High School credits for immersion students when their summer job requires speaking French, scholarships for Immersion High-School graduates to take a "bridging" year at a French university, etc. There are so many ways to strengthen what the school system can offer and if the goal is really creating bilingual NB citizens then the government has to create a more encompassing immersion strategy.

Leadership is not about making unpopular decisions and standing up for them no matter what. It is about listening; it is about making good decisions; and it is about standing behind them to do what is right, even when it's not popular. It disappoints me to see so few leaders right now. It's a shame because I think most of us truly want to believe in our leaders not only in the people but also in the idea - that a leader will guide us through difficult times toward a vision that makes sense and we can all get behind. We are not seeing that today.

Making a good decision means getting to the right answer. I believe that's critically important to New Brunswickers. I don't want to be doing this again in 2 years if a new government comes in and re-opens the issue. And I suspect this really could happen if we don't take a step back and re-examine what we're doing, why we're doing it and how we're proposing to do it. In the spirit of getting it right, I urge the Premier to take the Ombudsman's advice to delay all changes until the 2009-2010 school year.

The vision on the table is flawed. Croll-Lee did not meet its burden to provide rationale and justification for its recommendations. That is irresponsible. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Croll and Lee's analysis was flawed, data was misrepresented and misinterpreted. To accept the advice of Croll-Lee is a mistake for New Brunswick.

The implementation timeline is careless. These changes are not trivial. How can we possibly devise a plan to transform the education system in a matter of months, let alone weeks? The August 5th deadline puts students, parents, administrators, and most of all, teachers in a precarious position. The proposed implementation plan shows disregard for all stakeholders and it is not likely to yield successful results.

And the debate continues to rage. Here we are more than three months in and the fierce opposition continues to grow. How, in good conscience, can our elected officials be so care-free with the decisions they're making on something as foundational to New Brunswick as education? The Minister says he can't "lose another generation" of children. We are not talking about another generation; we are talking about another year. And we certainly can afford a year to ensure we make the right decision.

If we do not, the consequences will be far wider reaching than the Premier's Minister of Education is leading us all to believe. We will still have streaming (but it'll be much worse). We will still struggle to find the resources needed to help students who struggle. We will still be challenged to find enough high-quality teachers for our province. And we will be less bilingual in 20 years than we are today. Is that progress? Is that moving ahead? Is that the path to self-sufficiency?

It is about getting it right. And we need leaders to stand up and ensure that we get this right.

stand your ground mr. lamrock. the silent majority is behind you 100%. we do not dare give our names because we are considered bigots if we speak out against anything that involves french in this province. you are on the right track. streaming is not acceptable nor is the poor performance of students in early immersion / per dollars spent.
new brunswick is a small province with less than one million people. we cannot afford to cater to early immersion supporters. what are they asking us to support? they are saying we should pay for the
few priveledged students to satisfy there whiny, gleaner editor writing parents who are scared to death there children may have to step out of there
private-like school atmosphere into the real world the majority of english students now attend.
the numbers don't lie early immersion lovers!!!
your streaming & screaming can't hide the facts!!
the early immersion you insist is the cadillac of french educational programs is just that, expensive,inefficient & overrated by you.
i have read comments in the paper that we should have a referendum to decide this. now that makes alot of sense! lets have french people with children in french schools help the english people decide what is best for there children. dig your head out of the sand english people & wake up.
the early immersion supporters would have you believe that the majority of the people support them.
this is a bunch of smoke & mirrors. since when is 5000 people on face book a significant amount in a province of 850,000. wake up english people!
they had a rally in moncton to protest the decision & between 100 & 200 people were estimated to have shown up! same thing applies for saint john & fredericton. insignificant #'s showed up though they would try & lead you to believe the numbers were significant.
the supporters of early immersion should put there children in french schools if they are so convinced they need to learn it at an early age. i'm sure they will welcome you with open arms & if they don't then it will give you something else to complain about in the paper.
a judicial review & ombudsman report are meaningless as well. the silent majority will speak come election time in your favour mr. lamrock. as far as the oppostion parties go i would be careful how you handle this subject. demands for resignation and other crap that is being thrown out there is not going unnoticed by the silent electorate. we will voice our opinion next election & jumping on this reinstate early immersion band wagon may leave you feeling blue when the next provincial election is over & the ballots are counted!!! keep up the good work mr. lamrock & please stick to your plan. it is the right choice for english speaking students.

I would urge Mr. Lamrock to continue in his commendable search for the right way to accomplish the goal of having New brunswickers graduate from High School fluent in both French and English. While living in Germany with the Armed Forces many years ago we were always surprised to find that children were able to speak to us in English and often had French as well. Do not be discouraged, dissuaded or deterred in your plans for a fair and equitable course of study for all students.

I am very concerned and disappointed with the decision that the government has made. I agree that changes need to be made but I feel it is a huge mistake to remove early french immersion. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the first early immersion program in an Ontario community. Upon that I completed a French university degree and a French education degree. I feel that the early immersion program greatly benefitted my life. An entry point of only grade 5 and 6 are too late. An entry point of kindergarten or grade 1 should remain. Young children are similar to sponges. They soak up and absorb things quickly. They are willing to sing and play without hesitation. Too often in grade 5 and in particular middle school they do not have the willingness as it is not seen as acceptable. It is a time where social peers play a significant role in their development. If students were able to receive extra support in French from method and resource teachers as well as teacher assitants there most likely would be a decrease in the number of students dropping out of the program and a more diversified classroom composition. I wonder what will now happen when all students are required in grade 5 to do French and the resource support is not available to them in French or is available on a limited capacity. How will they succeed. Before eliminating the program it would be beneficial to invest into a more focused French immersion language arts curriculum that outlines specific learning objectives for each grade level. Many of the objectives now are too general. As well, too often French resources are not made available at the same time as English resources. Teachers are left to teach from the old or to translate the new. Some resources are also ment to support a francophone student rather than an immersion student. Again teachers are left to translate materials or to find alternatives. It is important that teachers be qualified with at least advanced plus and at the university level there needs to be intensive FSL training. That way teachers are trained before, are specialists and it is simply not someone who can speak French. Regular professional development session need to be put in place for all FSL teachers. These opportunities need to be meaningful and specific to what a teacher is teaching. This is not always the case. I had hoped that my children would be given the opportunity to be a part of the early french immersion program. I never envisioned this happening when we made the decision to leave Ontario. I am concerned about the education of not only my own children but for all the children of this province.

I appreciate teachers have been encouraged to share their views on this important topic.

There are two issues being discussed. French immersion and streaming.

In my opinion, the Early French Immersion program is a success and I see this first hand every day.

To increase the number of French speaking students. I feel what we need to change is simply to replace the Core program with the Intensive program. It is the only change that needs to occur when discussing French Immersion. Lowering the bar will not increase numbers. An intermediate level of French skills is not sufficient for most employers.

The real issue that is being discussed is the streaming. It's unfortunate that the goverment is considering abolishing Early French Immersion to camouflage the struggling learners. In fact, if this program ables us to identify those struggling learners, it should be easier for us to give them the help they need. Let's use the funding to hire additional TA's,resource specialists and additional FTE's to reduce class numbers and increase the one on one time these students need.

Please do not penalize these students who are able to succeed and will benefit from the Early Immersion Program, in order to make it more difficult for the people looking in that we have struggling learners.

Sincerely,

A French Immersion Teacher who will not be affected by the changes personnaly, as her children will be bilingual thanks to the French School District.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,

Having just read the comments posted by French Immersion students in support of the early French Immersion program, I was overwhelmed by the irony of their comments. The fact that these students can barely put together a proper sentence in English practically shouts out the necessity to make sure all students become competent in their own language FIRST!

Dear Minister Lamrock,

I am a strong believer in that our FI program is long overdue for a much needed change. The most captivating proposal put forth, in my opinion thus far, as been the idea suggested by Dr. Dicks of UNB.

If "streaming" and the fact that Grade 12 FI students are not scoring the goal of being fluently bilingual on the oral proficiency exam, than perhaps we really need to consider eliminating the FI Program from Grades 9-12.

Now, here is where I would like to build upon this idea. We will always have those students who will want to continue developing the French at the high school level and are fully capable, have the support from their parents, and WANT to be there developing their French skills. Thus, the oral proficiency exam should be given to those serious students who wish to continue French development at the high school level at the end of grade 8, bench marks and a specific score should be created to determine the student's ability and willingness.

Based on these results, NB should consider offering FI to a limited number of qualified students... Now, it's not expected that every community would have this program in place, but it is reasonable to privilege some with it where numbers warrant... after all we are the only Bilingual Province in Canada, so why remove the opportunity for the who wish to further learn French?

Perhaps this special 9-12 French Immersion would be housed in a Francophone School, whereby students would be immerged in a French culture.

I realize this program will be considered very elitist by many, but the fact of the matter is that society is elitist. If we are committed to bilingualism being an asset, than let's modify our current system so the all students benefit from the changes, but does not punish those students whishing to continue learning French. I believe this extra mile would heel great results!

Dr. Dick's idea is really interesting, but stops short of proposing what should be done for grades 9-12. I realize that a lot of support from parents and willingness from students would be needed to see my ideas through.. But NB always as community support when it comes to children and young adults, French Immersion is a privilege, so let's reward those who can achieve the ability to become fluently bilingual. FI could and should become a very specialized leadership course!

I am a teacher with District 2 and I must say that I was very disappointed with how this whole mess was handled. I do not understand how having no choice is a choice. We pride ourselves on being a democratic nation that maybe talks things through a little too much. That certainly wasn't the case here! Much of this seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction, to what I am not quite sure.

Yes, our FSL progam probably does need work, and the kids deserve better. NONE is not BETTER! All the research points to the fact that the younger you are when you start to learn a second language, the easier it is to learn it. So, how can it make sense to cancel ALL FSL until Grade 5? Where is the logic there? If you wish to delay French Immersion progams to give the kids a good solid basis in English first, so be it, but you still should include some elements of French instruction to prepare them for the onslaught at Grade 5. Having absolutely no French taught until Middle School is a huge mistake, in my opinion. What is wrong with giving them some of the basic vocabulary and grammar in the elementary grades?

As well, forcing ALL kids to take French Immersion at Grade 5 is also a mistake. Some people just do not have the ability, for any number of reasons, to learn a second language. Some of those reasons are students with exceptionalities, learning disorders, etc. Some just "don't get it." Some families may not wish for their kids to have French Immersion, especially if their child is already struggling with courses in their native language. Forcing all kids to fit the same mold is simply setting already struggling learners up for failure.

The Minister also makes comments about how French Immersion sets up elitist groups. So do sports programs... and arts programs... etc. Are they going to be the next to go? Seriously, we need to look strongly at the precedent we are setting here.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Actions speak louder than Words

There is no question that our education system needs improvement. As an English citizen of NB, I have grave concerns over forcing my child to be immersed in French for an entire 5 months just prior to entering middle school.

Mr. Lamrock's position has some very troubling facts.

He says Kids Come First. But here is what his actions tell me:

His plan to force children to five months of French in Grade 5 was commissioned before his Croll/Lee report was done. See memo of June 2007.

He says he is willing to listen to the people but his actions are defiant against Judge McLellon and the Obunsdman's recommendations.

He says it's because of streaming, but here is the math based on Mr. Lamrock's own numbers:

If you have 100 children, 80 in English, 20 in French, with 25% special needs (I will assume all of these special needs students are in English). Here is what you get:

3 teachers for 80 English Students = 27 per class = 20 students + 7 special needs

4 teachers for 100 English Students = 25 per class = 20 students + 5 special needs (Lamrock's recommendation)

But, what if you add just one more teacher to the English section? This is what you would get:

4 teachers for 80 English Students = 20 per class = 16 students + 4 special needs

He says that the French side has less children per class. So why not make less children per English classroom?

Applying just one more teacher to the English student population would actually DECREASE the average special needs students per classroom more than what his plan recommends. This is without making any radical changes like he suggests we need.

How this is a French / English issue?

He says we can't wait another year, 'for the children'
His actions say HE can't wait another year because next year he'll be heading into an election.

I am an Intensive French teacher with 18 years experience teaching Core French and 2 years experience teaching Intensive French. The program is a wonderful way to help students become fluent in French. I agree with abolishing Early Immersion due to the 'streaming' issues that result. I agree that Late Immersion is an ideal program especially after Intensive French in Grade Five. I do not agree with abolishing Core French in Grades One to Four. I think some exposure to the French language and culture is warranted before Grade Five because we are a bilingual province. I think that including French in the curriculum from Grades One to Four sends a message to all students and to the tax-payers that learning French is important.

I believe the consultation period should be lengthened to one year as suggested by the Ombudsman, Bernard Richard. I don't feel that the best FSL education program can be established, or implemented, in the time period established. Furthermore, the emails among governement administrators in the DoE strongly suggest that the decision to eliminate EFI was predetermined. I have lost faith and trust in this process. Besides, if the government is not prepared to lisen, let alone consult, with FSL experts, how do they sincerely expect parents to come up with solutions to the perceived education woes. And would they listen to them instead? Delay the decision, get all parties together (including experts) with an unbiased mediator, and first stablish the facts and statistics on FSL education in NB. Too many conflicting numbers being thrown around and these have caused much confusion. Once the facts are established, then everybody will at least be starting to consult/negotiate from a common point of agreement. I think this would be the best process to follow.

Dear Minister Lamrock,

Thank you very much for putting up this webpage so that the people of NB can share their thoughts with you on French Second Language training for anglophone students in NB. I am confident that you will come up with a fair and just decision for all NB children. Like yourself, I look forward to reading all the submissions over the next weeks.

It is refreshing to finally see that the decision to eliminate EFI is due to the "streaming" problem and not the ineffectiveness of the EFI program as was previously used a justification by the Liberal government. Everyone knew from the beginning that streaming was the real issue and not the EFI success or failure rates, but government once again tried to mislead the public.

Now that the real "problem" is out in the open and Minister Lamrock has identified "streaming" as the problem, lets try and fix the "streaming" problem and not blame the EFI program.

The EFI program is successful. I have witnessed it first hand. My daughter has thrived in EFI and as a 6 year old chooses to watch French CBC cartoons over english ones. She readily speaks french at home and teaches her 4 year old sister new french words and sayings daily. Her english has not suffered a bit from entering EFI. My 4 year old wants to take EFI also.

Certainly, some students struggle with EFI. It is not for everyone and parents should make those decisions based on their child's best interests and not the perceived prestige of having your child in EFI (I used the term perceived strongly). As I have said, one of my children is thriving in EFI but that does not necessarily mean my other children will automatically enroll in EFI, each child must be considered individually. However, I do wish to have the opportunity to make that decision when the time arises. Currently my right to choice is being taken away. I live in a Democracy...not a Dictatorship. Shame on you!

A good example of EFI not being for every child was used by Minister Lamrock in the Legislature on June 18 referring to a letter he received from a mother that due to her child suffering from severe dyslexia had to be removed from the EFI program. The mother goes on to say that she witnessed severe streaming issues between EFI and the core program. Why would a parent with a severely dyslexic child enroll their child in EFI? As I said, EFI is not for everyone. For the Minister to use these examples as justification is just sad.

I believe the "real" problem is pretty clear: there is a problem in meeting the individual needs of children in all programs, both french and english, but predominately english. There are many children that require extra attention or individual or specialized learning plans to meet their needs. That is fine and these children deserve to have their needs met. However, meeting their needs does not mean eliminating a successful EFI program. The provincial education budget for 2008-2009 is the largest in history I believe. Appropriate funds should be directed to hire and train appropriate staff to service children that need those special programs. Those children deserve that opportunity just as other children deserve the right to access EFI.

I say that the EFI program is successful. However, test results of french proficiency indicate that success rates are not where the province would like them to be. I, and many others, would argue that the testing is not done at appropriate times. French proficiency is only tested in grade 12. By this time many students are only taking 1 or 2 courses in french for various reasons. As the old saying goes "use it or lose it" which is very pertinent to a language. There should be a french proficiency test at the end of grade 5 to determine whether the EFI program is meeting it's goals. Many, including teachers, believe that EFI is reaching and exceeding its goals of achieving french proficiency and that the problem lies at the higher grade levels where students opt out of french courses for various reasons. In grade 12 a student may take a proficiency test after taking only 1 or 2 french courses for 2-3 years and have lost much of what they had gained early on. It is not fair to say that EFI is failing based on results for tests in grade 12.

My recommendations are two fold:

1. Allocate the appropriate resources to ensure that students requiring specialized lesson plans, extra attention or specialized resources are afforded those resources so they may experience a successful education. This would help correct the "streaming" issue.

2. Maintain the current EFI program and begin to conduct french proficiency tests during the EFI school years. This will enable educators to monitor the success of the program and identify areas for improvement. Also, initiate proficiency tests in middle school as well to determine if there is a learning gap at that level or if the gap lies at the high school level. These tests will identify what part of the French Immersion program needs to be strengthened to achieve the desired results.

In closing, I STRONGLY SUPPORT the continuation of the current EFI program and DO NOT support the elimination of EFI as proposed.

In a province that is trying to attract newcomers as well as bring New Brunswickers back home, how does this new plan affect those families? It doesn't because they will not want to settle here. I only wish Lamrock had of dreamed this up sooner, before we moved to the province.

Dear Minister Lamrock.

I think this vehicle for discussion and debate about the future FSL training of Anglophone children in NB is not in the spirit of Justice McLellan��s decision 2008 NBQB 201
(http://hamlit2008.googlepages.com/SmallRyan_vs._NewBrunswick.pdf). However, since apparently since this is the only option, I feel obligated to enter my concerns about your plan to terminate EFI.

First, your decision, which as you have indicated in you discussion paper, is based on the Croll and Lee FSL review. This is unacceptable as their conclusions are based on flawed approach and analysis (see http://hamlit2008.googlepages.com/ for a review of the Croll and Lee report). Your insistence of reporting the results of their analysis in the press, even when you know it is incorrect, is unacceptable for an open and honest debate about FSL training in NB. Essentially, you are promoting the following myths about EFI:

Myth 1: Attrition rates are higher in EFI than LFI. Reality --this is not the case. When calculated properly, they are the same.

Myth 2: Costs of EFI are higher. Reality --Actually using the Croll and Lee data properly, LFI costs more per student than EFI.
Myth 3: Literacy in mother tongue suffers because of EFI. Reality -- Monique Bournot-Trites and Ulrike Tellowitz "Report of Current Research on the Effects of Second Language Learning on First Language Literacy Skills" found that ��there is no negative effect of second language training on first language proficiency, and that second language training seemed to actually boost proficiency in first language literacy skills (http://acpi.scedu.umontreal.ca/pdf/report.pdf). Croll and Lee did not cite this paper, which is odd since it is a report sponsored by NB and the other Atlantic provinces. This does speak volumes about the bias in the Croll and Lee review of FSL training in NB.
Myth 4: Streaming exists because of EFI. Reality --Streaming exists because DOE has refused to hire resource personnel to make EFI inclusive. If DOE hires resource teachers to make EFI inclusive then SEPs would not need to move to the Core Program. It is ridiculous to blame EFI for higher number of SEPs in the core program when it is the unwritten policy of DOE to move SEPs from EFI to Core.

Myth 5: The Universal Intensive French program will get rid of streaming. Reality �V it will make it worse. Ottawa-Carleton Board of Education recently decided to terminate LFI because it creates streaming problems. In fact in their extensive review they found that ��EFI typically serves a more heterogeneous student population in terms of cognitive ability and social background.�� (http://hamlit2008.googlepages.com/OCBoardofeducationFinal_Report_FSL_R.pdf). Also, why didn��t Croll and Lee read and cite this report in their review? This is another example of their biased approach.

Myth 6: EFI is elitist. Reality-- This is totally untrue. This program is by definition not elitist. There are no entry requirements. Parents have the choice to enroll their children in EFI. In fact in the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Education (report referenced in Myth 4), they state clearly �V ��that immersion programs are not elitist (particularly in EFI), and that there can, and should, be an appropriate program option for all groups of children, including those with special education needs and those for whom English is their second language." This is what we should insist DOE to do here in NB. The problems that exist currently are not with the program, it is with how it is supported. In NB, EFI has no barriers to entry, except those put in place by DOE administration and school advisors. Currently, EFI is available to 78% of the population of the Anglophone population. For the other 22% of the province DOE is obligated to offer it where numbers warrant. This is DOE��s position. Therefore there is still choice, if parents in the different regions push DOE to offer it.

Myth 7: Parents of EFI children are elitists. Reality�XNo these parents just choose to put their children in EFI. Should EFI parents get mad at parents who choose to put their children in Core? No they don��t and they shouldn��t. This is a poor ploy by Minister Lamrock and DOE to pit parent against parent. This divisive approach is clearly an objective of creating this site. Let��s not let them be successful. Let��s help all of the children and parents by creating system that provides the best program for each child.

Solutions
"" Reinstate EFI
"" Provide Resource Personnel to make it more inclusive
o Develop a strategic plan to produce more EFI resource personnel. DOE/Government should sponsor spots at U de Moncton and UNB to fast track availability of trained resource personnel to make sure that EFI is more inclusive
"X This would result in a drop of SEPs in Core and increase number of SEPs in EFI. This would make it equitable for both students and teachers.
"" Engage in a re-education program for DOE personnel to ensure that EFI is advertised and supported properly.
"" Engage in advertising campaign to indicate improvements in support of EFI for both students and parents to increase the number of advanced �Vtruly bilingual students�Xproduced in NB.
"" Consider other plans presented by FSL training experts Dicks and Kristmanson (http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Resources/PDFs/AltPlan5.pdf) and approaches like those taken by the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Education (see Myth 5).

I do not know if the minister's decision is the correct one - I do know that he has or should have the authority to make this decision. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to make some changes.

Just some information: I recently attended a graduation at a High School which is number one in our district and 7th in the Province - according to the stats.

Of the 53 students graduating 21 of these graduates achieved honors and the same 21 received the New Brunswick Proficiency Certificate for French . May I also add that we have never had early immersion at our school.

Just some thoughts.

Please let me dispel a myth: Contrary to popular opinion, you don't have to be bilingual to work in NB. Yes, certain government jobs and a sprinkling of private sector jobs do require it, but there are thousands of jobs in NB for english only speaking people. From my own experience, it's your education credentials & experience that determine your competitiveness and success at obtaining employment. Myself, my spouse, and none of my children were enrollend in FI, and we are doing very well. I'm not a bad parent for not enrolling my children in french immersion. On the other hand, this is my decision. I believe as a parent you should have a choice whether to enrol you child in FI or not. It's our right to do so.

I don't support the Libreal government's FSL plan, but I believe for a different reason than most I have read. I'm not sure everyone is aware of this or not, but if you have a child entering grade 5 in Sept'08, who was not previously in a FI program, their 1st 5 months in grade 5 will be taught in french. I have grave concerns for my son you has a very limited grasp of the language, allthough he has taken a french class every year since kindergarden. We are supposed to be living in a Province of choice, where, as a parent, you can choose to enrol your child in a french immersion program, or an english program. I think it's great to have this choice, unfortunately the Libreal government plan will take this away from all of us.