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.

In a report in 2007 by Ottawa-Carleton District School Board in Ontario done by Quality Assurance, it recommended eliminating Late Immersion and keeping Early & Middle Immersion because of the low enrollment and extremely challenging nature of the Late Immersion Program. Also, it is has been proven that the Early and Middle Immersion program have the best outcomes for proficiency. This would be an alternative plan to emulate.
I know from my own experience that there are some parents that do not feel their child is ready in Grade 1 or Kindergarten for Immersion. But giving that extra 2 years and starting Immersion in Grade 3, after the child is already reading well and has a good grasp of concepts, would be another option for those parents.

I welcome the chance to voice my grave concerns regarding the dismantlement of Early French Immersion. Children learn best in their first and earliest years...science has proven it. In EFI, children and parents can enjoy great enthusiasm and positive attitudes about new challenges because neither parent nor child is aware yet of the chid's abilities and challenges. A young child embraces learning because they don't know any different. No one has told them that they can't do something...their attitude is "I can". I know children who descend from completely anglophone heritage yet believe themselves to be francophone because they speak french due to EFI. What a wonderful gift to give to our future!

New Brunswick has many things to be proud of educationally. We have topped the PISA list this year! Obviously we are doing something right! We also are looked upon as language innovators in this country-a province that others look to to lead the way. We don't want to step backward...only forward into improvement. We all know that there is always room for betterment, though we are succeeding, we should strive to give, achieve and aspire to be more. Early French Immersion works. There are plenty of researchers, parents, children and teachers who can attest to that proveable fact. The question is, will removing EFI help us in our weak areas? The answer is a resounding no! We can help teachers and students with their challenges without taking away what makes us so wonderfully well rounded, EFI.

There is no doubt in my mind that improvements need to be made in our educational system. However, by placing children who are easily teacheable and independent into the classrooms will not in any way help those students who are struggling. This happens in french immersion classes as well as english classrooms. We need to provide smaller classrooms, more T.A. education, more resources to teachers, kids and parents so that children with issues can perform to their highest abilities.

By reducing the number of special needs or struggling children by such small projected percentages won't help teachers cope. Nor will it help these children to learn by having children who are "easy learners" in their classrooms. These struggling kids need more resources, more manpower and more techniques to help them maximize natural potential.

Streaming is the "buzz word" surrounding the dismantlement of EFI but I think intensive grade 5 french and late french immersion will certainly lead to huge amounts of streaming in grade 6. In EFI parents and children are "blank slates" ready to learn, but in grade 6 children are accutely aware of ablities and challenges within themselves. These children are susceptible to peer pressure, bullying and will choose the easier road to avoid critisism. Only the best of the best will enter french immersion at that late point, so streaming is actually going to be magnified.

In closure, I think that wanting to improve education in New brunswick is admireable and necessary. However, we must be careful how we do this. We want to keep our children achieving highly, give them opportunities to better their achievements whether they are gifted or struggling. We need to add money, add people, add programs and resources in order to come out in the end with an educational product and model that will be legendary for it's success, not for it's inflammatory potential. We need to keep EFI so that we can maintain our bilingual status, our pride in our dual heritage and give our children the opportunity to be marketable worldwide.

We should offer---EFI for those who are confident in their decision to embrace bilingualism early on.
---offer core french for those students who prefer to study in english, this provides help also for immigrants struggling in english

Within these programs there should be enrichment opportunities in order to further enhance classroom work, resource rooms that students can visit for a day or a month after illness, vacation or behavioural issues in order to rebalance learning before reintegration into the regular classroom. It could also serve as enrichment for gifted students.

Let's embrace inclusion not in name only, but by truly giving teachers what they need ie. smaller classes whether EFI or english so that these children can truly learn without just being pushed through.

Please reinstate EFI for fall 2008 -

Minister Lamrock,
I am disheartened by your belief that eliminating EFI is beneficial for all children. Many of your comments center around the English core system,and how those classes have numerous children with individualized educaton plans and special needs, vs. the EFI classes, which have a smaller number of children with special needs. As an educator, I understand full well why this occurs. EFI needs to begin in kindergarten, not grade 1, and resources need to be available for this program. It is a successful program - hands down. By allowing children to start EFI in kindergarten, this will help eliminate streaming (although far more streaming will occur in your proposed system, once many of the above average children enter LFI).
Also, NB has an above average number of children with special needs - perhaps we need to start researching why this is occuring?
I recommend the province eliminate LFI, it does not produce successful results like EFI does. Keep EFI, however begin in kindergarten. Implement the intensive core program, but begin in grade 1. Children are entering puberty upon entering grade 5 - the last thing they are interested in is learning how to speak a new language. As a child, I was part of a pilot project in the NB school system that was called "enhanced French" - this project included more intensive French classes, and going to a French summer camp for 2 years. The results for me were poor, as I am not bilingual and this has undoubtedly influenced my job opportunities.
Also, please keep in mind how detrimental this will be to military families who are requested to be transferred to NB. Already, they are feeling the effects, as families from other provinces whose children are in EFI do not want to come to NB. This is also true with the RCMP. NB civil servants are also hesitant to make their opinions known due to feeling this could be detrimental to their jobs and future postions.
We need NB to produce bright,bilingual students - especially if we want to become "self sufficient." I highly recommend that you refer to an alternate plan that has been submitted to you by well known second language researchers: Dr. J. Dicks and P. Kristmanson. Their plan is based on sound, educated research.
I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you Mr. Lamrock, for the courage to do something about the second language education system in NB. For years, people have known that the Core French system was not working and that the numbers of students leaving public school with acceptable profiency was disappointing. Speaking out against FI was taboo. Even when one felt that the system benefitted a few to the detriment of many, you did not dare say so for fear of being labelled a bigot. I would love to see all childen on a more even playing field, in class numbers, in resources, in class makeup and in valuable French instruction.

The only negative comment I have is that there is a Core French program that worked. It is called A.I.M. and if used, it would have made a difference.

It is very nice to post my advice here. I am immigrant and my native language is not English. .For my experience, it is hard to learn language if you do not start to learn earlier. I think the EFL is good idea. Most of kids will miss their best language learning time if EFL program is cancelled.

Because there does have pretty good percentage of kids doing very well either on EFL or the English courses. If you think EFL program still have some shortcomings, you had better find out why and how to overcome the shortcomings. All we should do is to keep and make the FEL program working better.

I have two kids. One is Eight in Grade 2 EFL program. Another one is Six. I wish he could go to EFL program this September. We’d better give him this opportunity.

Thank you.

Mr. Lamrock & Committee,

I am a parent of a child who has just completed the Intensive French program and a parent of a child now entering grade one.

I believe that the IF program is an excellent one. Seeing the amount of French Language that was being demonstrated my my child within the 1st month of the program was amazing to me. The only comment I would make is that I believe there should be some sort of introduction of French by grade 4 to help prepare them, even one period per day, to the basics of French.

I am THRILLED that a true Phys Ed program is being re-introduced into the school system as a result of this change. I believe that a childs education should extend beyond the mind, and include their physical well being.

Although I truely believe that as parents we should have the choice to decide what type of education our children receive, I believe even stronger that all children should have equal opportunity to do so. Seeing the vast difference in the student to teacher ratios in then English vs EFI classes, I do not believe that the equality exists today.

I have read the reports in full, and I believe that the decision you have made is a good one overall. Although it may not be a good one for all children, (i.e. special needs children), on the whole, it is a good one.

I sympathize with those who are passionate about changing your decision, I believe they are not looking outside their box, that for the most part, they are familes with children who are currently in or about to enter EFI, and that they do know what to give their children different educations, I understand that, but you have to take yourself out of the situation, educate yourself, and understand the needs of the whole.

We as residents elect individuals who we believe will make the best choices for us, that is what a democracy should do, we do not always like the decions made in politics, but we have elected you (and your collegues) to have the authority to make the necessary changes which will benefit out communities. Flawed at times, but overall it is a good system.

Out Province cannnot continue to fund 3+ education systems, if we focus on one for grade K-5, then we may be able to make better use of our education dollars, invest in textbooks, outings, etc.

However, I do believe that the French education system should be structured exactly as the English. With Intensive English at grade five and an option for late English Immersion at grade six, otherwise, how can we achieve the 2013 goal?

Although I have not provided any alternatives for those hoping to change the decision, I hope I may have given a different view point for some.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

I appreciate that the government is trying to eliminate the inequality that exists currently between Early French Immersion and English class sizes and resources. The English classes are too large and have too many adapted curriculum students which create a chaotic and difficult atmosphere for teachers and students alike. I agree with providing an Intensive French program as it gives children and parents alike an opportunity to see what immersion is like before choosing whether to enroll in late french immersion or core french but think it should be preceded by core french classes in grades 1 to 4. The trials for Intensive French were conducted using children who had previous exposure to the french language. The Intensive French program in grade 5 should build on that foundation. I also believe it should be optional. My goal as a parent is to provide my children with the best education possible in all areas, including exposure to the french language but not at the expense of other core subjects such as math, science and literacy. Mandatory Intensive French also neglects the needs of students with learning disabilities or adjusted curriculums that will only get frustrated in an environment that doesn't work for them. If grade 1 to 4 core french is removed, more effort should be placed on those areas where we are falling behind such as math, science and literacy. It has been our experience that alot of class time could be used more effectively if less time was spent on field trips, extra activities and movies. While I appreciate that some of those things enhance learning, there needs to be a better balance of priorities. We need to focus our resources on improving the overall education of our children first as well as providing opportunities for learning french as a second language. I think the best way to do this is to give them a solid basis in English first from kindergarten to grade 4 with french being a required subject then offer intensive immersion and late immersion opportunities for those who want it and continue core french for those who don't.

I would like to comment on three statements in the document entitled, Putting Our Kids' Achievement First.

The one thing that many educators and researchers have pointed to over the
years is the segregation and streaming effect of immersion and its impact on classroom composition, especially in the early grades (p.2).

Since I have never taught FI students I know first hand the effects of the segregation that the FI program causes. Core teachers are bombarded with issues pertaining to classroom management, overwhelmed with servicing students with special needs, and overcome with guilt about not reaching our few gifted students. From what I have seen, French Immersion teachers do not have, for the most part, the same class composition as Core teachers yet they continue to have the same class size standard. As a result, many students and teachers in the Core program feel like failures when the assessment results are revealed. It is any wonder why our results are so low? Teachers are only human and they do their best for those in their classroom. I for one am more proud of the accomplishments my students on SEPs have made in one school year than I am for the FI student who achieved Superior on their assessments. Also, based on my experiences and encounters, I feel my students are more excepting of peoples' differences and more well-rounded socially than Immersion students, simply because Immersion students have never had to share a space with 'different' people. There has been only one school I have taught at where the FI teachers also had to teach Core French. The student body was teamed based on grade level, not language.

As the country's only bilingual province, New Brunswick enjoys a unique place in Canada, and many New Brunswickers want their children to benefit, in every way possible, from the opportunities that bilingualism presents (p.1).

While attending school in New Brunswick I came through the Core French program (and continued the program for all three years in high school). I did not graduate at an Intermediate level, but the French language skills I did learn continue to benefit me everyday. If there had been an Intensive French program when I was in school, I may have graduated bilingual, but I do not feel that being bilingual or not has affected my success in life. Would being bilingual be a worthwhile and beneficial skill? Yes. But, as an adult, nothing is stopping me from pursuing this goal if I choose to do so now.

My specialty is in English Language Arts, and I also have a passion for teaching mathematics. I personally feel having students begin their schooling in the Early French Immersion Program puts them at a disadvantage. These students are not only trying to learn essential skills, but they have to do it in another language. In my opinion many students in the Early Immersion program do not get a firm grasp of the Mathematics curriculum because it is taught in French, nor do they have a chance to fully develop their early literacy skills. From what I have witnessed, if I child enters grade one in the Early Immersion program and is unsuccessful they are immediately behind in the core curriculum and have basically carved their educational path in stone. When parents ask me whether or not they should place their child in Early Immersion, my answer is always "NO".

One vital change I would make to the Immersion program at all levels is to teach Mathematics in English. Some French teachers who teach in the Anglophone sector are placed in math positions just because they speak the language, not because they have a math background. This is not only an injustice to the teacher, but also to the students. On many occasions I have provided in-service and resources to French Teachers who needed help in delivering the math curriculum. These teachers spend hours translating any material I provide for them. French Immersion Math teachers are having a difficult time because there are just not enough math resources available to them in French.

Eliminate Core French for grades 1-4 starting in September 2008 (p. 4).

I think this step is too drastic. Even though taking Core French may not have the outcome you desire for students does not mean exposure to the language is not important. Again, even though I did not graduate bilingual, I still feel the French skills I learned were vital to my success in school. If anything, I think the standards for Core French should be raised, and Core French teachers should feel that their subject is just as important as any other. I think if Core French were eliminated in the early years, it would set a lot of students up for failure when they have to take the Intensive program in grade five. My suggestion is to begin the Core French program in grade three, and make the Intensive French Program an option for students entering grade five. Also, instead of eliminating Early Immersion altogether, it might be better suited to start FI in grade 3 or 4 as well.

I am committed to a bilingual province.As a unilingual anglophone, I need the help of the education system to teach my children to be fluently bilingual so they can participate in the future of this province. The Early French Immersion system has worked beautifully for my oldest child - who can work in both languages now. I want the same for my second child.

The proposed changes to EFI are not viable because they start the process too late when children are less able and willing to learn a a second language. The goals for French competency under the proposed system are too low and will not result in bilingual graduates.

If the school system is having problems with student success, they need to contribute greater resources to students in need and not cancel an effective and successful program.

As a professional who has moved to this province for my career, I will have second thoughts about staying in New Brunswick if my children cannot be educated properly.

I want to encourage you to "stay the course" regardless of the attacks on the integrity of the report authors or the political rhetoric.

I want to commend you for making the courageous decision of actually stating the desired goal, what the problem is in achieving the goal and the steps to get there. This is not a matter of French against English and most New Brunswickers fully recognize this. It is a minority of parents, academics and the media who are trying to make it the main ISSUE. Those parents who are happy with the changes will not complain in the papers and on the radio (especially CBC Moncton). Happy people don't complain! However, they also will not express themselves in the media for fear of being labelled anti-French or bigots. It was also the main reason they didn't complain about immersion in the first place.

I've lost count of the number of people who have "whispered" .. "Thank goodness!" because they were worried about their child being put into the core program because they were not ready for the immersion program. I understand that some of the rationale for parents putting their children into the early immersion program is that they want their child to have a good grounding in French. What is wrong with having a good grounding in English? What is so terribly wrong with establishing the basics in your mother-tongue before learning a new one. It's what the French school system does. And don't assume that just because the 1st five years including Kindergarten were in English that your child has mastered one language and is ready for a new one!

When the immersion program started, it must have been just as much of a drastic change as this change is now. Over the past 40 years, other tweakings took place - middle and late immersion but it didn't seem that anything was done to the core program. If early immersion is the only really effective program - why bother with middle and late programs? Why offer other second language instruction to adults - (Spanish, Italian, German, etc.) if it doesn't turn out native sounding language? Is it really necessary to "sound native" if you can understand others and at least make yourself understood? No one is asking those questions because the answers will support your thesis. Why is it that we will accept the most bizarre sounding dialects of English from immigrants and foreigners and even hire them, but we won't accept "non-native" sounding French in our children education.

People are fooling themselves if they think that what is going on in the schools is real "immersion". This is simply 4-5 hours of academic instruction in French. Real immersion should be 100% - in school, outside school, in the community, in the home, at Church, all the remaining hours of the day. It is extremely important that the support in the home is total. Parents MUST stop relying on the schools to provide the total language experience and only participate by helping with homework and watching Passe Partout. If this is so important why aren't those parents teaching French to their children between the ages of 0 and 5 in the home? The fact that someone would want their child to "sound native" turns into that "snobbery" thing so you can brag about your child. By the way - even some "natives" don't sound "native.

What would I suggest as a change to your recommendations - not much really

Now imagine you were at a conference and all the speakers spoke Chinese or German. Maybe some slide and pictures, but no translation. This is how it is for a grade one child going into an immersion program. In grade one, they have to relearn the alphabet that they just learned in Kindergarten, relearn that adjectives go after the noun, that verbs are "conjugated", that objects are masculine or feminine - just because, and they won't be learning how to structure an English sentence until grade 4 or 5. Why does this not seem right for an English mother-tongue student?

The concept of Social Learning is what is supported in the French School programs - it is that their students will "absorb" English through local media, signage, cultural activities, and generally the "environment" of the local communities. This is why they do not offer English immersion programs. They prefer to concentrate on the mastery of their children's mother tongue. Why shouldn't we??

Early exposure to another language is important and can be done, even at the kindergarten level, and is very helpful. It does not have to be as French instruction however, but just exposure to the alphabet, to words, songs, providing books at a low level and increasing with the grades. It can be around the school, at social events - whatever - just not instructional. Keep instruction in English for the first few years - at least. Then - at the grade 4 and 5 - have intensive French where all of a sudden, the exposure over the first few years has a context, English grammar rules can then be generalized to integrate the French grammar rules, and it should "click" in very quickly. By the way - that's how we learn English from infancy and early childhood. There is no "instruction" - just exposure. Then in the schools, applying the rules to the language is just an extension. Can't we at least get one language down right - preferably the "mother" or first tongue?

Then in subsequent years 6-12 - offer the immersion programs or not . but maintain the "core" French courses and make that stronger and more demanding.

Those academics that advocate early immersion in Kindergarten have made the assumption that children entering into school are at a close learning level (no need to assess their individual learning skills). The theory is sound, reality is quite another story! Until they teach in the elementary classroom, for a few years, not just a few experimental sessions and until they actually work with the children in a kindergarten class - I would not accept their recommendations or their opinions.

Stay the course, Mr. Lamrock - change has to be made and the changes have to be given the chance to show results one way or another.

I am the father of three children, all who are now past middle school in New Brunswick. So I have no personal stake in this question. Two of my children were in French immersion, and the third was in immersion initially, but later moved to the core French program. So I have seen both programs. The two French immersion children are functionally bilingual, and would become fluent if they ever move to a French environment. The core French child has a much longer and harder road to travel, should that come to pass.

The child in core French is there in part because of three years spent in the school (grades 1 to 3) in a 50/50 immersion program in Quebec. The Quebec education system is phasing out these programs in favour of early total immersion. We would have chosen French immersion for our third child, but the school system here was not willing to (or could not) support his transition to the superior French immersion program in this province.

Having seen my children in both systems, I am of the opinion that the early French immersion program is the stronger program. However, I value choice, and I firmly believe that parent should have the right to elect to place their children in French immersion or not.

I also spend much time reading the education literature because of the issues surrounding our children. I am struck by the misconceptions that are being repeated.

1) Introducing a second language into the education system does not lower the performance of the student in their first language in the long term. It does initially, but even controlling for ability, the evidence is that teaching a second or even a third and subsequent language generally results in better performance in the first language. There is no evidence that long term performance in a first language increase because instruction in a second language is withheld.

2) Languages can be learnt at any age is true. But that ignores the way learning happens. The way the brain absorbs language is very different at age 5 than it is at age 10 or 11. I suspect that the current immersion program has better results than the middle intensive French program will have. But it would be immoral to test this conjecture.

3) The Early French Immersion program is not about privilege or streaming. It is the lack of support for learning problems in that program that result in most of the attrition. Here in Sackville, both programs (EFI and core) are about the same size. The choice of program is up to the parents.

I think the government should improve the core program, provide support for children in EFI who require it, and where numbers warrant it, offer both EFI and English programs.

A wise compromise would be to re-instate Core French in the early grades. As the government has already realised and strongly supported; when introduced in the early grades, Literacy, Math, Music, Phys Ed. and Guidance, produce lasting and stronger results. It would seem that this would also apply to learning the French language. Surely, learning some French is better than learning no French. We must remember that all studies evaluating results of Intensive French at Grade five used students who had already had 4 years of Core French.

It is very frustrating to realize that I have no say in my daughter's future. I currently have a daughter in EFI and a daughter starting Kindergarten. I am disappointed to think that I cannot provide the same opportunity with both due the the proposed lack of EFI for my second daughter. My husband attended a class picnic for my daughter's grade 4 class and it took place in their classroom. The rulein the classroom is to speak french at all times or stay in for recess. My husband was so amazed at how fluent these kids had become with their 4 years of EFI. I do believe being a somewhat shy child in school myself that the opportunity for kids to be open to this new language is lost by the time they go to Middle school. At this age no one wants to look stupid on front of their friends and are unwilling to be as free with their mistakes (which comes with learning a second language)in speach. Also how can you have an intensive French program that is based on conversational skills when there is no basis of French at all until then. I watched the Town Hall meeting that they had and the co author of the Intensive French program stated that Intensive French is supposed to coincide with Core French and was not intended to replace EFI. I am not a professor of anything but I do know what makes sense and eliminating EFI is not the answer. I am hoping that my second daughter will have the same opportunities as my first! Please give me back the ability to choose for my child's future! Please reinstate EFI!

On May 8 Joseph Dicks proposed a very good alternative to the FSL program being proposed by Mr. Lamrock. He suggested that late immersion be eliminated and that early immersion start in kindergarten therefore" solve the problem of classroom composition because it would prevent students from being prematurely identified as having any behaviour or learning problems, and streamed out of the program."It addresses the streaming issue and keeps New Brunswick children still able to graduate fully bilingual for those parents who chose to go that path. This seems to me to be a great compromise. This puts the choice squarely in the parent hands. Do I as a parent, value bilingualism enough to make the extra commitment that might be needed to my child's education or not?

Instead of parents being able to chose to have their kids have a capacity in French (if Mr. Lamrock experiment works) or achieve a intimidate level plus with late immersion the fully bilingual option is still there. I can not understand why your government is so determined to undermine the ability of children to become fully bilingual not just have a capacity in French.

If Mr. Lamrock is really sincere about being open to alternate plans then one has been submitted that addresses the streaming issue which is the only credible argument Mr. Lamrock has made during this whole so called debate.

It makes absolutely no sense to me how the only official bilingual province can have an education system that does not offer a way to become fully bilingual.

Every other province seems able to make early immersion work. What are they doing that we are not? That is the question this province needs to ask.

Thank you! It's about time! That's the sum of what I have to say about the changes you are making to the Immersion program in New Brunswick. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. After 40 years of experimenting and doing the same thing - and not achieving different results - it's time for a change . and not just a tweak here and there. You may have your critics about the report, its authors, the data and the analysis. In the end, teachers, parents and the students know the truth. Streaming happens, kids are segregated, learning suffers and the end results show it.low performance results. These are not stats, these are facts! Even if a re-analysis of the raw data shows that 40% of children are "making it", it is still not enough for a "bilingual" province.

We have to give change a chance.

I appreciate your time to read these comments and to act appropriately.

I had such optimism when the Minister came to office. Mr Lamrock's skills on the floor of the Legislature showed he had potential to play an active roll in the governing of New Brunswick. Sadly, his actions have shown exceptionally poor skills as a Minister, as evidenced below:

- commissioned a poorly researched and executed report, overwhelmingly dismissed by experts for its faulty analysis and recommendations;
- created ill-conceived policy based upon the above report;
- inadequate consultation process without feedback from key stakeholders (mainly educators and parents);
- poor consultation communications using email as the primary method;
- inappropriate scheduling of the consultation process, timed to solicit the least amount of responses (over March Break);
- inappropriately argued against the public opposition by using terms such as "Christian," "elitist," "segregation" and, ultimately, demonizing the public opposition;
- ardently disrespected the judicial decision requiring the "quashing" of proposed policy changes and refused to re-instate the EFI program.
- disregarded the Ombudsman's report and its criticism of the Minister, his department, the commissioned report, as well as a recommendation to have an extended consultation period.

I no longer have confidence in Mr. Lamrock's ability to hold this position. I do not trust this round of consultation and any policy that he will enact. Even the timing of this latest attempt to create appropriate policy shows incompetence. The timing is too tight. A thorough consultation, analysis, review, policy creation, planning and finally enactment cannot be done effectively in short time allotted (less than 4 months). And yet Mr. Lamrock is rushing this process.

One good thing to come out of this is that, finally, the several good alternatives that had been presented to the Minister prior to this consultation process are finally being represented publicly. Many have second language instruction programs that can be implemented and include EFI as well as enhanced Core offerings. I encourage this process not to rule out these well-researched and viable alternatives. My fear is that the Minster will once again dismiss these credible recommendations.

Because of a lack of faith and confidence in Minister Lamrock's intentions and abilities, I am requesting that Mr.Lamrock's ministerial position be terminated and that an effective and responsible Minister of Education be appointed in his place. Ultimately, this issue goes beyond the topic at hand, and reveals a governance problem. No minister who has exhibited such a flawed execution of his responsibilities should be able to remain in his position. Removing Minister Lamrock from this portfolio will re-establish effective governance and increase confidence in the Department of Education and confidence in this consultation process.

The best scenario is for the Minster to resign and a new Minister be appointed. I believe an expert panel should be commissioned (as in other effective public policy processes) and an equitable education policy enacted for the 2009 school year.

One suggestion I have if the proposed plan for IF (intensive french) is to go ahead is to at the very MINIMUM provide 3 - 5 hours/week of french in grades 1 - 4 (or even beginning in kindergarten). My reasoning for this is that I do now want my 10 year old learning the alphabet in french or their colors, etc. At least give them the chance to get a small foothold on this second language before throwing them in full force in grade 5.
I truly believe children are sponges at earlier ages, everyone knows this with absolute certainty, and I stand saddened if EFI is abandoned. I have one child entering grade 4 (in the EFI program) in fall '08 who is doing fantastically and another daughter entering kindgergarten. I feel sad for the fact that my youngest daughter will not be able to understand the books my older daughter and I read now until 5 years from now as opposed to 1 (if she were allowed to go into french in grade 1).
Thanks for your time

I wish to say that I am in favour of the changes proposed to FSL. I went through the Immersion program as a child. I stopped taking French in Grade 12 because I could get higher marks in other classes and that was more important when going to university. Not much has changed in the 20 years since I graduated! The kids are still dropping out because they can get better marks in English classes. FACT: Most Anglophone kids go to English post secondary schools...take English programs...and lose much of the French they learned in school. This is what happened to me and I see it happening today.

What today's kids need is a strong base in French that they can choose to use to become bilingual. People who think their children are bilingual in Grade Four EFI, are mistaken. They may be able to speak French, but they are NOT fully bililngual after 4 years.

EFI is one way of providing children a good base in French; however, at what cost? Many kids are not ready to handle the program at age six. Should these kids be denied the chance to learn, because they struggle in school? Many who go into the program find it too hard and drop out, leaving them behind in their English skills. What about them? The plan Mr. Lamrock has would give ALL kids a chance to develop a good base in French. Whether the children want to be bilingual is something THEY have to decide when they leave school. If they want it, they will work for it, and keep/improve upon their French. If not, they will lose it. I am speaking as someone who sees the results of EFI. I am a teacher.

The English classes are full of special needs, learning disabled, behaviour problems, ADHD,etc...because these kids are not 'encouraged' to go into French. Then there are the ones who join English classes mid-year because they drop out of the Immersion program. They now have a sense that they are too dumb to do French, AND they find themselves behind in the English class too. I really feel for these kids! I have seen the kids who drop out of Immersion in April, only to be told they have to write a provincial exam in reading and writing come May. Guess how well they do? The English classes have become difficult to teach. The kids see chaos and frequent disruptions. They have few positive peer role models in their classes. In a balanced class (the type that would exist without EFI), the low kids would have the chance to see stronger students. They model that behaviour and they learn from this. I see this every day. I teach kindergarten, and as such my class is not victim to the streaming that happens as the kids enter Grade One. I have seen the weaker kids learn from their peers. It is powerful!

My suggestion is: leave K-3 for getting a strong base in English. Begin Intensive French in Grade Four and continue it in Grade Five. Children then can choose Immersion or Core in Grade Six. Immersion classes will NOT involve math and science. (These subjects are better learned in English.) French classes become required until Graduation.

I thank you for allowing the teachers of this province to voice our opinions.

Mr Lamrock,
I have sent to your email address a comprehensive outline of my suggestions to meet the goals you have set out for the English Education System. The following is the conclusion from the document I sent:
Keeping Early French Immersion and beginning it in Kindergarten would work to help accomplish all of the goals set by the Department of Education (high French proficiency, improved literacy, more challenged children entering early immersion and therefore fewer in the Core program). The needs of students with challenges and improving literacy levels in both the French and English school districts must be looked at as challenges in and of themselves, separate from the French Immersion issue.

Children with learning challenges are many and varied. Some are supported well at the moment. Children with high needs such as hearing impaired, visually impaired, and severe developmental delay are usually supplied with individual aides who assist them one-on-one in the classroom, with specifically prescribed assistive technology, and with IEPs which should be implemented by the assigned aide. Practically, these children should not, if adequately supported, result in an increased workload for teachers. If they do, then supports are not adequate and must therefore be supplied. Teachers alone cannot be expected to give those children what they need to succeed in school.

It is children with language based learning disabilities, social immaturity and attention deficits who "fall through the cracks". These children typically have average to above average IQ s, and thus have the intellectual potential to succeed in school, but lack the language, and/or attention skills to meet their full potential in the classroom, as it exists in NB today. Some are known to the school upon entry, most are identified as they progress through the grades. It is these children that present an increased workload to the teacher and whose literacy skills do not progress in tandem with their classmates'. A new educational philosophy must be developed for these children. I have made specific suggestions (in this document) to address this issue.

Improved literacy must be attained in the French and English school systems. Literacy scores are lowest in the French system illustrating that the problem is not related to French Immersion. New Brunswick needs to look at the teaching methods and reading programs used in provinces where literacy is high, investigate teaching methods used in private schools and tutoring companies, provide specialized attention, and teaching to children with language learning disabilities. Good teachers need better methods with which to teach and better conditions in which to teach.

I am a mother of two, one who is in Grade 2 English, because we, as his parents, thought it was the right choice for him. My youngest, who will start kindergarten in 2009, would likely have been placed into French Immersion.

To be frank, I don't think the present system NOR the system proposed by Kelly Lamrock suit the needs of most children. I believe that children need a firm foundation in their first language. I also believe that children need to be exposed to a 2nd language early, when they are not self-conscious, afraid of failure or hesitant.

I believe a Grade 1 start for French Immersion does not allow a child the time s/he needs to become efficient working in the language with which they are most comfortable. They are so little. They are still learning how to behave, how to socialize, how to be independent, how to cope away from family. School at this age, and any age for that matter, is much more than curriculum. I think they should be able to do these things in their 1st language.

Wait too long to introduce a 2nd language, however, and we are at risk of creating strictly anglophone students. I grew up in as an English speaking child in an English speaking community with a francophone father. In grade 7, there was no way anyone was going to co-erce me into making a choice to enter into Late French Immersion. I wasn't going to subject myself to an environment where I might feel embarrassed, teased and more self-conscious than I already was. And I don't think I was the exception to the rule...I think I was the norm.

I believe intensive french is a great way to introduce the concept of a new language in a fun, creative atmosphere. But grade 5 is way too late. Why don't we consider implementing it in Grade 3 so that, by Grade 4 when students are making the choice to go into Immersion, they are still young enough to not be affected by self-consiousness or a strong fear of failure? Students of this age can still be guided fairly easily by their parents with this kind of a choice. And, they have benefited from 4 years (including kindergarten)of their 1st language, honing superb literacy skills and work ethic that they can transfer to their learning of the new language.

Children will get the strong literacy foundation they need in their first language, thus increasing the test scores that worry so many.

Streaming will be dealt with more effectively since the children with special needs or other learning issues could be given the intensive assistance they need in the primary years so that they are capable of entering into french immersion as well.

Parents and children wanting french immersion in this province will be happy.

Kelly Lamrock can save face by implementing his plan, just a few years early.

And we will be the bi-lingual province we claim to be.

I think you should assemble a team of experts on french second language training and ask them to come up with a solution for NB children instead of asking the public to come up with the solution. If the francophone school system is faring worse than the anglophone system, then we can't blame EFI for these poor results when the francophone schools (with no streaming) are in worse shape. The overall question that should be asked is why is the NB school system faring so poorly?
I cannot accept a LOSE-WIN system (many students stand to suffer a "loss" so that others can "win") when there are other options. If Intensive French has proven to be a superior program to the Core French program, then why not offer Intensive French the way it was designed to be, alongside EFI. To me, this sounds like a potential WIN-WIN.
I cannot accept that we are lowering the standards of education for the next generation of children. To me, this means that you know the proposed changes aren't going to be effective at teaching a second language. If you are so hung up on the 70% bilingual level, then I think you should make the bilingual testing mandatory in high school, whether it be in 11th or 12th grade. This would give you a much clearer picture of how many students are actually graduating with various levels of french proficiency.

I do not agree that our children's rights as humans should be taken away from them by being forced into a french program. That goes for the reverse as well. I'm sure many French speaking families would not or do not agree with thier children being forced into an english program.
I believe the programs in both the english and french schools should be optional. We live in a country that is suppose to have freedom of choice. For hundreds of years people from all parts of the world have come here because of the freedom. This is just one example of how we are being forced to accept changes in our country. We just won't be given the choice so how can we argue??
It is not fair to anyone, no matter what language you speak, to be forced into learning a second language. I think (being a NB resident all my life) that in our province being bilingual is certainly an asset but it should not be a requirement!!
I for one was a child of the EI program. I entered EI in grade one and stuck with it through to graduation. I passed my French Oral Proficiency Exam with a mark of Advanced so I can say yes, that program obviously worked for me. I however knew friends who didn't do so well. My parents are completely English speaking and I remember coming home with homework in elementary school and having to read allowed my French spelling words to one of my parents so that they could read them back to me for me to practice writting them. My parents knew nothing of the French language and it was just a lucky thing that I excelled in the program regardless. On the other hand I also knew friends who had a french speaking parent at home and still did very poorly in the program. So, I feel safe in saying that it will all depend on each students abilities, who will succeed and who will fail in a mandatory program.
I do not believe mandatory is the way to go. I feel each of us as parents and students should be given the choice to decide for ourselves what type of program our children will follow. Some children just don't pick up on a second language the way others do and I'm sure this stands true for French speaking children learning English as well.
I have a different view on this from a parents point of view. I, for one, have a son who started Kindergarten this year. He just finished! My son has a speech delay. It is a hereditary issue as his father and grandfather were the same way as children. I have been in speech therapy with my son since he was 2 years old. He never spoke a word till he was 2 and then it was only Mama and Dada. He was 3 years old before he had a dozen words in his vocabulary. We've come a long, long way in the past 3 years and now he's doing well but he still struggles with certain sounds and speaks with a very significant lisp. We are hopeful that it improves more over time (as his father and grandfather outgrew the worst of it) but it also leads me to worry about what trying to learn a second language will do to him not only education wise but socially as well.
For us as a family, we decided to put our son in the core program as he needs to focus on his oral proficiency in English at this time. It was always our hope that once his speech issues were mastered then if he decided he'd like to learn something more that he'd have the choice to enter a French program at a later grade. Now, there's a chance he'll be forced to do so even if he's not ready and it really worries me to wonder what that will do to him.
Now I also have a daughter who is only a year and a half and is already showing remarkable speaking abilities and there's no doubt in my mind that if it continues I would be hoping to be able to enter her into an EI program.
I do not look at my children from a family point of view. One does not have to necessarily do what the other does. Each are individals and should be allowed to choose their educational options as individuals.
I am really hoping that whatever program changes are made are for the better but I don't believe taking away our choice is a change for the better. Fix the already existing issues in the classrooms but do not take away our freedom of choice!

PLEASE do NOT get rid of Early Immersion. This would eliminate the strongest French education in our system, turning out the students with the highest proficiency levels. If late immersion cannot match them, and it cannot, then no form of Core French, even Intensive, will either. We don't want to lose options. We don't want to lose bilingual jobs for those who can teach French at this early age. What message does that send? We don't want to lose francophone families in our anglophone communities who benefit from this program. PLEASE don't further divide this province. PLEASE do not force all students to take Core French until grade 12. There are only so many instructional hours in high school and some students can go further in life with more emphasis on literacy and technical/vocational skills. PLEASE think this through!!! It doesn't make common sense. If a student must take Core French until grade 12, what happens if he/she fails it one year? Will it hold them back, with no room in the schedule? If you answer "YES", then this is a crippling policy, which will cause many students to graduate late. If you say "NO", then they will be pushed through anyway, and as soon as they figure this out, they will not try, or push themselves to attain proficiency. I VALUE French, and all other skills students can graduate with, which will best suit their future professions. I teach high school French, which includes Core, Late and Early Immersion. My own children have been in Core, Intensive Core, and Late Immersion. I know what I am talking about. One size does not fit all. We cannot teach "to the middle". PLEASE DO NOT ELIMINATE EARLY IMMERSION and PLEASE DO NOT FORCE ALL STUDENTS TO TAKE FRENCH UNTIL GRADE 12. Give us the money, materials and skills to teach a fun, dynamic, interactive, relevant, communicative, experiential French program, with varied levels (from zero, which is Immersion, to three, which is Applied French, in high school). Expect and measure successful completion of a certain proficiency before granting the grade 10 credit. Expect and ENFORCE certain requirements so students do not think they can only repeat the course twice and do nothing each time, before passing along to graduate regardless.This is the current system and it SHOULD be IMPROVED but PLEASE RETHINK YOUR STAND!! There is a BETTER way than what you have outlined!!!

I'm a former New Brunswicker living in BC. I was considering returning to NB to raise my family until I heard about your government's plans to dismantle the Early French Immersion (EFI) program. As an anglophone Acadian who did not have the opportunity to start an EFI program in Grade 1, it's important that my own children be introduced to our ancestral language as early as possible. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to acquire and retain a language when intensive exposure is delayed until higher grades. My husband is an anglophone who took an EFI program in Ontario and, even though he has barely spoken French in over 20 years, he is still fluent and has a perfect accent. For me, on the otherhand, I have to take evening classes to re-learn French so I can compete for jobs in NB.

I thought NB was keen to attract new and former residents to the province ("grow the population"). If you're serious about it then you might want to consider how this bizarre education policy is going to impact in-migration. The rest of Canada is looking at you and wondering if you've gone mad. Your policy is short-sighted and is a thinly veiled attempt to cut costs, not improve the system.