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.

My two children attend Stanley Elementary School. Early French immersion is not an option for them. When I attended the same school a generation before, I had the same experience.

I found that upon my graduation, my French linguistic training was not sufficient for any practical use. Immersion had not been an option in my small school at any point. I could have possibly moved to another school, however this would have meant leaving friends and putting a large inconvenience on my parents shoulders. Interesting enough, my lack of French skills has to be placed on my back somewhat, as my wife whom attended the same school is bilingual (she made more effort to learn French, including a 4 month student exchange to France).

When attending University I quickly realized that my lack of bilingual status was a disadvantage when I was to be compared to many of my fellow students who had the advantages of French immersion. Specifically, as I intended not to leave New Brunswick, many jobs in the private and public sector could be scratched off my list of possibilities.

In hindsight I do not regret having come through the small school system. I am not bilingual, and doubt that I ever will be. At the same time it is worrying to me that my children attending the same school would not have access to solid French training. To be clear I do not believe that Stanley has the number of students to warrant early immersion. So the choice to me as a parent is to let my children attend our small local school, change schools or accept that the chances of my girls obtaining bilingual status is small.

The move from early immersion to intensive grade five French has made this issue a moot point. My children will now be weighed equally with any other child in New Brunswick in terms of their French training. It is with huge relief that I support this move towards equality of child education.

I do hear the pain of other parents whom feel early immersion is important to their children. I would suggest that if learning a second language at a young age is important to them, find private means to do so. After all my wife and I have placed priorities like piano training at a young age for my girls paid for from our own pockets. I do not want my tax dollars paying for something other children in New Brunswick get that mine will not: I do not want to pay for a basic inequity in my children's education.

Scrap second language training in the province.

Have the kids watch TV to learn their second language. For the French make them watch 'The Simpsons' and for the English 'Acadie Man'

It will be very cost effective.

As an educator in the school system, I was relieved to have the NB Government take the brave stance on Early French Immersion. I have witnessed many children enter Early Immersion who have struggled in Kindergarten. These children continue to struggle throughout their years of education. Parents are hesitant to transfer them to the English program or they transfer them during the Middle School Years. As a result, they are a number of years behind in their English language skills, apecifically reading and writing. Schools are hesitant to advise parents to transfer programs for fear of overriding the parents right and as a result some students never receive the education needed to be contributing members in society. Some schools have given Resource help to Immersion students. This has taken away valuable Resource time for students who are struggling in the English program. Once again, children become the educational victims due to lack of necessary programs that would enable them to acquire skills for success.
If NB is to put children first then we need to give them the opportunity to become competent in their first language before exposing them to a second language. Many people would disagree with this statement. I would argue this point. It is better to be competent in one language rather than be incompetent in two languages.
Unfortunately, the majority of parents who speak in favour of Early Immersion have had children who experienced success in the program. We need to think about all the children of NB, especially the ones who become discouraged and frustrated while participating in Immersion. These are the students who become disruptive in the classrooms due to lack of achievement and self-esteem. They eventually enter the English Program in High School lacking the skills necessary to achieve the Gr. 9 outcomes. Eventually, they drop out or fall under the radar. It is disheartening to witness this year after year. It is imperative that all members of society invest their time and energy into what is best for the education of all children.

My children are entering Grade 2 and Grade 4 this September. They are not in immersion; therefore, my concern is the cancellation of the core french program. I would like to see the core french program stay. I feel that it is important that the children be introduced to a second language at an early age. I am fully bilingual and am able to teach my children french and that is why I chose not to put them in immersion, but was satisfied with a core french program. I am unsure of what an intensive french program would offer my children. I feel that they still learn through the existing core french program. Any bit helps. To put a "hold" on learning french until grade 5, I feel is unnecessary. I would really like for my children to have a core french program offered in the fall. Please don't waste years of learning until they reach grade 5.

I simply cannot be made to believe that eliminating EFI is the right way to go whatsoever. If we bring it down to the basics we are saying that because not every student can handle EFI it should be thrown to the side of the road and replaced with the new suggested program. I must ask then should we also eliminate the advanced programs such as advanced math simply because not everyone can handle it? I would certainly hope not. Having the EFI program in place allows people the freedom of choice. It does not make the student a lesser student because they are not in the Early Immersin program. What a shame to see the students who can "handle" the program lose out because it is not the right program for everyone. This is coming from a fluently bilingual individual who was one of the first students to go through the EFI program in Northern NB.

To have been born and raised here and to now see my husband contemplating a transfer to another province in order to allow our daughter to have the advantage of EFI simply makes my heart ache.

I must also ask, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why can the teachers not voice their true opinons on this decision? I have spoken to several of them (off the record of course) and have as of yet to find one who supports Mr. Lamrock's decision.

I cannot and will not stand by the decision to eliminate EFI. The 2010 elections are closer than you think.

Mr. Minister,

I fully support your proposed changes to the French Second Language Program. I urge you not to give in to special interest groups, but instead to stand your ground with what you and the Department of Education know to be in the best interests of all children in our province. Your proposal seems entirely reasonable and well-grounded, and it is more than time that we begin thinking outside the box when it comes to education. Eliminating EFI (which has the sole advantage of giving some of our students a better accent when speaking their second language) in favour of a program that will expose all students to their second language so that informed decisions can be made on which course to pursue to gain better use, is the right way to go. My vision for a bilingual New Brunswick is one where Anglophones can listen to Francophones speak English with an accent - and Francophones can listen to Anglophones speak French with an accent. But in the end, both linguistic groups have preserved the richness and opportunities of their first language. This, I truly believe, can only be accomplished with a firm grounding in a first language.

I have faith in the children of our province. How unreasonable and depressing to think that you can only learn something well if it is started in Grade 1! How intolerant to believe that you can never learn anything well past a certain age! I want to see all our students maximize their potential in Math, Science, Art, Music, reading, writing, and communication. I want to see them approach all their learning with confidence in their ability to learn. What better way to start them off than by capitalizing on the success they can achieve when their learning begins in a familiar language? Children who come to a second language knowing that they are capable of learning are going to have the motivation and enthusiasm to go on. Starting an in-depth exploration of a second language in Grade 5, with teachers who are trained to make the most of that age group's spirit and learning styles, will give every child a chance to see for him or herself which is the best way to go. Late Immersion may be the way for many, with the understanding that content areas like Math and Science are now going to be taught in the second language... and a strong Core program, where students know that they are going to be expected to progress in a second language just as they are going to be expected to progress in their other subjects, may be the way for others. There is the choice. I would argue that it is now a better choice, and a more informed one, because the ones who are going to be learning their second language can have input.

I would also like to say that we need to clearly understand what French Second Language means to every parent in New Brunswick. It does not mean fluently bilingual. It does mean that you have the basic ability to communicate. It means this in the same way that, when you graduate with Grade 12 Biology, you have a basic ability in Biology. You cannot become a doctor with this basic ability, but you certainly can go on to use your knowledge to reach that goal. If you have a good basic ability to communicate in your second language, you can certainly go on to use your knowledge to become even better. Education does not stop after high school; you are not bilingual, even if you have started with EFI and continued with FI all the way through your public education. I believe that everyone in this province should clearly understand that the goal of the public education system is to provide grounding in all subject areas, and not to be the sole vehicle to produce second-language speakers.

I am a classroom teacher, recently returned from working as a Resource teacher and a Literacy Support teacher. I am excited by the whole new direction that my chosen profession seems to be taking. I love that our Math programs are changing to reflect developmental issues, and our pedagogy is changing to meet that need. I love that we are moving ahead with so many literacy initiatives, and that we have a Department of Education that is finally saying "Let's try a new approach." I don't feel we are changing for the sake of change, but that we are changing because the time to adjust our ideas and raise our expectations has come. I truly feel that with your proposal we are now offering every student in our province - regardless of ability - the chance to learn together. Imagine that, all of us learning together, and learning from each other, too.

Idealistic? I don't know. I do think that if you dwell on the negatives, it becomes very easy to get stuck on the same treadmill, and end up never looking around. Yes, we are still going to have days that are less than perfect, with parents that are less than happy, and children who are not going to fit into a perfect mold. But that, unfortunately, is life! Nothing is perfect, but some ideas might move us a little closer in the right direction!

Your new proposal is, in my opinion, one that will move us closer to a truly inclusive system that prepares all our children to move ahead. It makes me even prouder to be a teacher. It makes me feel as if I am part of a province that is not afraid to embrace change to make something better. To everyone who says "Keep EFI", I would challenge them to set an example for their children by showing them positive ways to deal with and grow from change. EFI is not the only way to learn French, and we need citizens who are willing to be open to many different ways of reaching goals, even if it is not their way. To parents who are concerned that their special needs children will not be well-served by Intensive French, I would challenge them to trust the people who work with their children every day in the school setting - and to continue working with these professionals to maximize any opportunities this program will provide for their children. We know and appreciate exceptionalities, and Special Education Plans are still there to accommodate their children's learning. To parents who think their children are being "forced" to learn a second language, I would ask them to please not limit their children's opportunities... give Intensive French a chance, and then make a decision: Late Immersion, or Core! And to you, Mr. Lamrock, don't back down on this pivotal issue. Give us Grades K - 4 to get our children firmly grounded in their first language, then bring in Intensive French followed by either Late Immersion or Core French with energy and relevance. Don't delay... start in September 2008.

Thank you!

As a primary teacher in New Brunswick, I would like to see the children in elementary grades, (1- 4), have some Core French before entering the Intensive French program in grade 5. Since the introdiction of the AIM gesture program, the children really enjoy their French classes and they seem to be learning to speak well in French. Even if they only had French only once or twice a week, I believe that would be very beneficial to their learning of a second language.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,
I would like to know why this web site only contains the Croll-Lee report and an inclusion report as background. This seems to discount opinions and research which are contrary to the findings of the Croll-Lee report. Many second language acquisition researchers and professors have consistently stated that children acquire a second language best from a very early age. There pronunciation is better and they tend to have a more positive view of the culture associated with the second language. The younger they start learning a secon language the better. Are you prepared to include in this web site other bodies of background research which give contrary findings to the Croll-Lee report? By only including these two reports as background, it gives the impression that this is not a meaningful consultation. It only seems to present background which supports your view and not opposing views. Hence, it appears to not be fully consultative. It is importatant to have a wide variety of research, findings, views and opinions. Numerous second language acquisition researchers and professors from New Brunswick and across Canada have deemed the Croll-Lee report flawed. Why do we not have other background research which give a diversity of opinion and findings? In order for this to be a meaningful and prudent consultation on second language acquisition, language experts, researchers and professors need to heard and be an integral part of this process. Whenever there is a major shift in policy and curriculum provincially, it necessitates a comprehensive consultation that takes months and even years of discussion and consultation(i.e Social Studies)to finally arrive at a final document and decisions regarding implemetation. This tends to be the norm for other provincial curricula. With such a major shift in policy and curriculum, why is this norm not applied to this situation? It appears to go contrary to the process established which is ordinarily used for other provincial curricula. Why is this so? A six-week consultation process in the summer seems woefully and completely inadequate for such a major change in provincial curriculum!! For this process to be completely meaningful, this discussion must continue for at least one year as has been recommended. Please answer my questions. I would really like to have straightforward answers to the questions I have posed above. Thank you.

We are senior citizens and no longer have children or grandchildren in the school system but we have been quietly supporting you behind the scenes for your courage to actually come to grips with the problems of first and second language proficiency and streaming in our schools. Bravo! We hope that you will find some rational new ideas among all the rhetoric and have the courage to begin implementation this fall. We don't want to lose another year to the status quo.

This is not a French/English issue nor are our comments politically motivated. We just want NB's children to be well grounded in their first language and then to have the opportunity to become proficient in the second official language. Literacy, numeracy and physical fitness are all addressed in your plan for NB. Perhaps some more thought has to be given to the exceptional students at both ends of the scale.

Dear Mister Lamrock,

Our mommy and daddy have told us that we might not be able to learn the French that our big brother got the opportunity to learn when he first went to school and that really makes us sad (tears forming).

Why are you taking away our ability to learn French when we want to. My younger brother and I have enjoyed listening to our older brother talk in French and were getting really excited to get to learn like he did when he started school.

We asked mommy and daddy why this is being done, and they told us, "Mr. Lamrock thinks he is trying to provide a better classroom for you to learn in." I may be a young boy and my twin sister of similar ago a young girl, but I feel that I want to be able to learn French like our older brother has had the opportunity to do.

Mr. Lamrock, you are really making us upset by this decision you have done. Why not talk to us and ask us when we want to learn French. I have talked to my friends and many of them are just as anxious to learn French now, not later on. From what I have seen from my older brother, he is doing quite well since he started taking his French in the first years of his school years.

My understanding of the government system is that people like my mommy and daddy vote to put people into government to represent our interests. As our government representative in education, you are not representing us very well. As we are always punished for doing stuff that mommy and daddy do not approve of, I think you should go to a "time out" and think about what you have done. When I go to my time outs I do think about the consequences of my actions and feel really bad about having done that.

Please for me, my twin sister and my similar aged friends, don't take away my French class. I have seen my brother using his hands to sign out French sounds and I am very excited to learn about how these are going to work out for me to? Seems really exciting. Can you tell me what these signs mean?

Mr. Lamrock, I want my French class and so does my other grade 1 classmates who I have yet to meet or are my friends. Don't take that away from me.

(This is from my son who is about to start school with his twin sister and we had to tell them about the possibility of not having any French class to go to next year. He cried and cried and cried when he heard that and wanted something done about it. Our daughter while not as teary was just as sad. I hope you can see this first-hand account from a student's point of view of just how much they want it too. It is not just the parents who want this to stay, it is the very children you are trying to improve who want their French to stay as well).

By taking french instruction time away from the kids in Grade 1 to 4 you will be losing out on the best possible time for them to learn (early). The core french program can work if it has enough resources. My son was in grade 1 this past school year and he has learned alot. He was able to put on a play about the 3 little pigs. All done in french. All of the kids did a wonderful job. This program can and is working.

If you wait and start to teach them french in grade 5 it will be very difficult for them to pick it up. Opinions have started to form, they are more aware of the way the sound when speaking any french. The time to expose them to a new language or subject is when they are young and eager to try new things.

Pre-schoolers have learned spanish by watching a TV show.

French should not be taken away then forced on them in grade 5 and expect them to pass these tests you have in mind. French should be offered to all kids no matter where they live and it should start in Kindergarden and end in Grade 12. If the kids who live in Edmunston can learn english right along side of their native tounge then why can't the reverse be done here?

The kids need to learn English, French, Math and Science and should be done from the time they start school to the time they leave school.

Would you consider taking math away from the grade 1 to 4 kids then start teaching them in grade 5? What about reading and spelling? Would you take that away from the grade 1 to 4 then start to teach them those in grade 5? Probably not, because it would be too late, so why take any french teaching away from the grade 1 to 4?

From my experence in taking to any parants that have put there kids in the early french immersion their kids have suffered in learning english. Those kids may be able to speak and write french, but their enlish skills are not up to par.

If you continue on as you have stated, then those kids will struggle in grade 5, fail, and will be forced to leave New Brunswick to find any kind of employment once they manage to make it out of Grade 12. You should try to keep the kids in New Brunswick, not force them to leave to be able to make any kind of living!

As a former student of EFI, it disgusts me that the provincial government is changing the way young students in New Brunswick learn the French language.

Any argument that I've seen or read about the change, points out that a student suffers English language comprehension problems and is therefore, at a disadvantage in his/her own first language.

As a prime example, this couldn't be further from the truth. I "managed" six years of post-secondary education at the University of New Brunswick and I have become a teacher in Manitoba who consistently teaches English language students to pick up a second language as quickly as possible. I brag about the immersion system in New Brunswick and how much it's helped me! From culture to appreciation and understanding, young students should learn about differences and culture through another language. And based on personal experience, my view is that the theory of diminished capabilities in English is extremely flawed.

Please don't do this. It's such a shame to see New Brunswick's reputation as a leader in French education become tarnished by inaccurate reports and a lack of study.

1) The Government should stick to their guns on this issue. EFI is unfair to those in the core program.

2) The day it is a requirement to learn a second language in order to graduate High School is the day I send my children to private school.

3) Stop forcing the French language and culture on me.

I am a teacher in NB. I must say that after reading some of the comments posted, I feel even more strongly that the elimination of EFI is necessary. Aside from the problem of streaming which is a real issue in schools and creates a hierarchical education system, I feel strongly that children who are enrolled in the EFI program are suffering in their mother tongue. After reading some of the comments posted by EFI middle school students and seeing the spelling errors "crear choise" etc. And after teaching EFI students and noticing those same issues when they attempt to communicate in writing in English, I feel that the problems are clear. Studies have shown that the early years are when children learn to master their own language. This is not being done with EFI students. This is something that should concern parents of studetn in EFI.

I believe that every person has the right to choose to learn a new language, but it is not the child making the decision, it is the parent. Many of whom cannot speak French themselves and are unable to help their child at home with homework which puts a break in the link between home and school when educating children.

I feel that Intensive French in Grade 5 is a solid, well thought out alternative. This program will test the child's ability to learn French and then the parents, together with their children, can make the decision to enter Grade 6 Immersion or not. Alternately, those who decide to take the road to higher education, can master any language, whether it be French, Spanish, German, or other in University. Having gone to University with classmates who became completely fluent in Spanish, French and Italian, with no prior knowledge of these languages, I believe this is a viable alternative.

As much as people like to deny that streaming exists, it is in the schools in full force. As much as people wish to deny that EFI does not affect the mastery of the English language, the evidence is in the classrooms and is undeniable. I understand the plight of the parent with children in EFI, and the strong desire to want the absolute best for your child; but I also see glimpses of an elitist, hierarchical system that contradicts the spirit of equality that our great country is founded on.

I should mention that in addition to being a teacher, I am also a product of a French mother and an English father. I say this because I understand that some people view those who are against EFI as being anti-French...this couldn't be further from the truth. I love my French heritage. I just see and agree with the issues that Mr. Lamrock has based his decision on.

I support Mr. Lamrock's decision 100%

If we go and delete the early Immersion program, this province will not be able to compete with the rest of Canada. The bilingual province of N.B. has gone back 40 years in time. Today, it is very important to be able to communicate effectively in more than one language. It is a global affair.

I fully support the proposed changes to the French Second Language program as put forth by Minister Lamrock. Furthermore, I find it refreshing to have a Minister both make a decision and act on it in such a timely manner.

I know there has been a lot of opposition to the plans, which in my opinion, is coming from parents who are fortunate enough to have the choice to enroll their children in immersion and don't want that choice taken away. For many parents and students in the province immersion is not an option. This is unbalanced and unfair. If the plans for the new French Second Language program do not materialize then some NB students are being given advantages that are not offered to others. If immersion can not be offered at every school in the province then it should not be offered at all. Every student in NB deserves to be treated equatibly.

I also think that, with respect to French Language Training and many other skills, the organizations who want to hire people with these skills need to step up to the plate and take on the responsibility of training their workers to have the skills required. It is a vast and competitive work place these days and there are shortages of skilled workers in every area. The first organizations to figure out the best way to get the skilled workers they need is to have their own training programs in place will be leaps and bounds ahead of others. The political desire to have students leave high-school with an intermediate level of French is driven by many factors, one of which is the requirements of the New Brunswick work force - and in a large part government positions. I would suggest less pressure should be put on the Education system and more on the employers desiring these skills.

Dear Minister Lamrock,
I applaud your courage and commitment to revamping the NB Education system. Finally someone who is willing to take on this unpopular but much needed task.
I have worked in the education field for many years and have witnessed first had the erosion of the english core program caused by the implementation of the early french immersion program. It should not be about english and french but about creating a balanced system for all students which includes math, physical education, music, art and much more. Your observations are right-on and I support your recommendations.
Finally, I would like to congratulate you on standing by your convictions in the face of adversity. You have had to endure much from those who are bent on personal attacks and slanderous words. Stand tall! You are on the right track. You have much support and most definately mine!

Studies have shown that all the provinces with early French immersion enrollment has increased. Where Intensive French has been implemented as a boost (only) to the Core French program, including here in New Brunswick, increased enrollment in late immersion has also occurred. This indicates there is NO lack of interest, but to the contrary. The best recommendations I have read on this site belong to : "RECOMMENDATIONS - "BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME" . 1. Offer the Early French Immersion program in more schools 2. Require that French speaking Resource and Methods teachers, French speaking Teachers Assistants and more Literacy Support Teachers be available in all schools. 3. Replace the current French Core program with the suggested Intensive French Program. 4. Make more French classes mandatory in order to graduate. A review of all information on this submission is vital. Opposition Leader Jean Volpe stated funds that were allocated to EFI never made it to the program-it is time the funds find their proper intention. There is an increase in EFI, classes are filled to capacity when it is offered. EFI students suffer due to the lack of resources.
It is also important to increase French language books (not photocopies!) for Immersion students. Currently many school libraries and classrooms have a severe lack of French language books on their shelves (so much for the Cadillac program). Let us remember, all children are different. They have different interests and needs. Let us not "cookie cut" our education system. What is good for one is not necessarily good for all.
The decision to remove EFI contradicts statements in the Self Sufficiency agenda-how are we to retain our graduates in this province when they cannot find work? How would we entice expatriates to return to this province with their children/prospective children, when the reason why they left more often than not was due to the fact they could not work within this province in a bilingual capacity? We are a bilingual province, learning both languages at an early age is proven to be easier, it is necessary/vital and makes common sense.

Hi,

I am very much in favour of this new program. I have worked as a social worker in the school system and while I believe very much in bilingualism, I believe there is a better way to do it. Many other countries have other ways and early immersion is NOT the best that is available. It is good but it is hurting the way we teach our children and creating two systems, what some refer to as streaming.

I also wonder why the issue of the fact some districts (or parts of districts) have Immersion in Kindergarten was not addressed. I live in the North of the province where that is available. I also must say that this year, it seemed rather interesting that the winner of the CPF concours was one of the students from our district - a late immersion student in grade eight who had only begun immersion in grade seven. I do not see that in their press releases though it was in the local newspaper. I am not attacking them but I think they represent a small group that knows how to lobby well and I see a silent majority out there who is afraid of speaking out for fear of being termed anti-French which of course is anything but the case!

All students in New Brunswick deserve the right to learn as many languages as possible and I hope the province will try to accomplish that. I think this program is one way of achieving literacy in one's own language, equal access for all students to programs, inclusion and a high quality of French which we are certainly qualified to give.

I spent my elementary years in the French system and my grade seven plus years in the English system and that was an excellent experience though I realize it is not available to all. I see this new program as somewhat similar - only in reverse.

Please do not be bullied by a small group - most of the parents I know who place their children in Early immersion do so to ensure their students will be in the better class. Even while I understand it, it is unfair to the other students.

I also wanted to add that New Brunswick's program differs from many provinces. In most jurisdictions, Early Immersion is either achieved by a lottery system or by first come first served which leads to parents waiting in line ups over night. We do not have that merely because anyone who wants immersion can actually have it once the preschool screening is complete or screening post kindergarten outside the District I reside in.

I also served on a school committee so I know more than many how this program impacts - financially and otherwise - in taking away resources from those who may need other resources and may not receive them.

Good luck in your daunting deliberations!

I am very disheartened by the manner in which the proposed changes to the FSL programming in our province have been designed, apparently researched and implemented without a public voice. We are only able to speak now, I feel, because it has been ordered that our voice be heard. We are speaking, and I am hopeful that we will be listened to with an open-mind, not a defensive stance.
My son just finished kindergarten and is registered to begin EFI in the fall. I don't believe he will have this option. What upsets me the most about the decision to eliminate early immersion is that I feel our right to choose for our children has been taken away--everyone had the same choice--isn't that a universal option? If some opt not to take it, isn't it their right?
I want opportunities for my children, and bilingualism will provide opportunities that they may choose to utilize, whether it be in business or personal travel. I can support decisions that are supported by sound research, and this decision is not backed by sound research. There are ways to decrease streaming and segregation without eliminating a program that works. This decision was rushed and it has divided and upset the people of NB.
The public would be better served by being educated that EFI works for all, that if you have deficits in learning, that you will have them in both languages, but if the right support systems are provided, your child can have needed interventions and be bilingual.
Research also supports that children learn languages more quicky and with less reservations at an earlier age. Cognitively, the age at which the accelerated learning of a child slows markedly, is eight. Why then, would we wait to introduce a second language until nine or ten?
If I thought the alternatives were reasonable, or in ithe best interest of my sons, I wouldn't feel as let down by governments position on intensive french in grade five. If students were still going to be introduced to the language at grade one, or EFI was to begin before age eight, then I would be more comfortable with the public education options for my children. Right now, I feel I have no options. I hope we will be heard, and I hope time will be taken to reconsider the proposed changes to EFI and FSL progams in NB.
Universality doesn't have to mean the same program for everyone, but the same opportunities for success. My success and your success may be different things. Fairness doesn't necessarily mean equality in every case--some people may need more to be on the same playing field as others--more time, more extra-help, different program options, etc. What is right for my child may not be what is right for yours, but don't take away that choice.

Let me begin by stating that I think this whole process is a sham. Mr. Lamrock has already shown himself to be "unfair" and "unreasonable". However, believing that civic engagement is the responsibility of all good citizens, I will use the avenue that has been made available to me. But surely it is not being proposed that the decision will be based on a count of thumbs up or thumbs down on this web site. Almost everyone thinks that the current educational system is failing us and needs changing but shouldn't we be basing the decision on something more the gut feelings, anecdotes and popularity? There is a huge amount of research that has been already been done. There is much evidence and analysis to be considered and we can appropriate the best practices from elsewhere in Canada and around the world.

The Minister of Education says that it's all about the children of New Brunswick and he wants to ensure that more of them become more bilingual. He plans to do so by eliminating the most effective way of achieving high levels of bilingualism, the Early French Immersion program (EFI). At first, he said he based this decision on the Croll Lee report but, after that had been thoroughly discredited, he claimed that he had the support of other experts. Yet, as soon as he mentioned any, they denied his claims and explicitly stated that they do not support his decision. Effectively no one, who supports the teaching of native English-speaking children to become genuinely bilingual in French, supports Mr. Lamrock's decision, certainly no experts in the teaching French as a second language (FSL). However, it is noteworthy that there is strong support for Lamrock's decision to scrap EFI among the supporters of the former Confederation of Regions (COR) party and we remember how much they supported learning French.

His plan to improve bilingualism involves the elimination of, not just EFI, but all French language instruction until Grade 5 and making Late French Immersion (LFI) optional thereafter and, if that didn't discourage enough children from entering the program at that point, perhaps his plan to not allow any of them to ever switch out of it will do so. He's even planning to lower the standards for what constitutes being bilingual in a blatant attempt to give his proposed plan the appearance of success. The man, who so passionately denounces streaming and the elitist nature of EFI, plans to emphasize LFI. However, the Ottawa-Carleton School Board recently scrapped LFI because they listened to real experts who looked at the data and saw that LFI produced more streaming than EFI. Dr. Fred Genesee, one of the experts that Mr. Lamrock tried to claim supported him, actually said: "Early French Immersion is the most equitable program to teach children to become bilingual. The notion it is a program only for elites or children of higher abilities is not supported by research".

The main reason that the core program has so many more students with Special Education Plans (SEP) is that the government refuses to provide students in EFI with the resources these plans require. If students required an SEP, they had to switch to the core program. Mr. Lamrock's own policies conspire to produce the results he claims to deplore. Mr. Lamrock also asserts that the EFI classes are much smaller than core classes and yet, using Government of NB numbers for 2007-08, the average sizes for Grades 1-5 differ by less that 1 student (19.6 vs 20.3).

The Ombudsman decried the process that preceded the decision to eliminate EFI as "the worst example of public disengagement" he had seen and his report provided evidence that the fix was in. Yet we are supposed to believe that Mr. Lamrock is a changed man and that now his mind is miraculously open and he will honestly consider alternatives from people he has been ignoring and denigrating for months. The courts have ruled that his decision was "unfair" and "unreasonable" and has been quashed, yet he persists with implementing his changes. The ruling said that, if the decision was to be revisited, there must be "time to allow for a full debate". A debate is not a few open houses and posting comments on a web site (especially when some seem to be not getting posted). A debate has debaters and impartial and competent judges. In this farce, Mr. Lamrock gets to argue his case and be the judge.

People in the Department of Education were concerned in January that "we were not quite ready for full implementation" by September (in 9 months). By ignoring the Ombudsman's recommendations (and common sense), one month certainly won't be enough time to implement anything by September if the decision only gets made in August... unless that process is already well underway. So much for "quashed". This whole business is a sham and a disgrace. While the Minister of Education has the legal right to make a decision, Justice McLellan points out that the law also states that he must act "in accordance with the principles of fairness" in doing so. I wonder if Mr. Lamrock's behaviour would be considered in contempt of court.

So now we have the courts, the ombudsman, the experts and their research on one side and on the other, Mr. Lamrock (and his "silent majority" whom the infamous Richard Nixon claimed were his supporters too). He claims to want to make more students, more bilingual by providing fewer of them with fewer hours of instruction. Surely, it's incumbent of the Minister of Education to demonstrate how his untested "plan" will produce the results he predicts when all of the experience, research and expert opinion indicates that it will not.

Mr. Lamrock disingenuously and repeatedly states that those who disagree with him want to end the consultation and reinstate the status quo. This is as ridiculous as saying that anyone, who argues against decapitation as a treatment for headaches, wants people to have headaches. Mr. Lamrock's solution is so bad that the status quo is a better choice but that doesn't mean the status quo is the goal. It's past time for the Premier to show some leadership and appoint someone (or some group) with the requisite credibility to take the time to come up with a workable plan based on real data from real experts to improve the education of New Brunswick's children in time for the 2009-2010 school year and at least one thing is already clear to me -- that "someone" is not Kelly Lamrock.

The Education Minister, in initiating this public consultation, has asked for ideas for constructive reform not simply defence of the status quo. A genuine consultation does not begin with instructions to those being consulted about what they may or may not offer by way of advice. The fact is that the current system is better than the proposed changes and should not be altered until a sensible and well-considered reform plan has been developed. Improvements could certainly be made and a number of reasonable suggestions have been put forward, including the idea of starting French immersion at the kindergarten level and providing better support and resources to allow students of varying abilities to enroll in the immersion program. But the idea of patching together a major reform of the education system on the basis of six weeks worth of public comment is ridiculous. At least another year of public discussion and informed research is required before any significant changes can be made.

One thing the government needs to do is make a more compelling case for the need for major reform, in particular the elimination of early immersion. We are told that New Brunswick comes last or close to last among Canadian provinces on PISA testing, but we also know that these scores partly reflect poorer outcomes in the francophone education sector. It has also been reported that one of the districts where early immersion is particularly popular (District 18) scores above the Canadian average on these tests. Furthermore, we are told that New Brunswick has the most inclusive education system in the country, which presumably has the effect of pulling down average scores on PISA testing.

Given these pieces of additional information, citing outcomes for New Brunswick as a whole is clearly misleading. To persuade New Brunswickers that there is a problem in the education system that needs fixing, the government should provide more detailed analysis of PISA results, showing scores for Anglophone school districts only, along with the percentage enrolled in French immersion programs in each district, and making adjustments for the percentage of students on special education plans here compared to other parts of the country. With this information, we might then be able to judge whether the education system in New Brunswick really is underperforming compared to other parts of the country.

If in fact our results are below average, the question then becomes whether the streaming associated with EFI can be held responsible for this. Again the evidence cited to support this proposition has not been convincing. The research conducted by Doug Willms apparently finds that countries where streaming is practiced (e.g. Germany and Austria) tend to have a large number of students at the bottom end of the scale on PISA testing. However, the form of streaming practiced in these countries is very different from the streaming associated with EFI. It is based on testing and evaluation that explicitly assigns students to an academic or non-academic stream on the basis of early academic performance. Students in the academic stream are surrounded exclusively by high-performing peers, students in the non-academic stream by peers of lower academic ability. Data provided in the Croll-Lee report (pages 54-55 and 57-58) clearly show that the class composition in both immersion and core classes here in New Brunswick is much more diverse than this, with significant numbers of students at both the high and low ends of the literacy testing scale.

There is also the important difference that in countries where streaming is explicit, the student who ends up in the non-academic stream has been labeled as less academically able - a label that must have a strong negative effect on self-esteem and academic performance. Students enrolled in the core program in New Brunswick do not carry any stigma of this sort, nor should they as many will go on to significant academic success in high school and beyond.

My view is that effects of streaming in the case of EFI are not nearly as severe as in these other places and that the main issue we confront here in New Brunswick is the large number of students on special education plans in the core program. Every effort must be made to ensure they receive the support they need and that their particular needs do not have a disruptive impact on teaching for the class as a whole. I do not know exactly how this can and should be achieved, but I do know that eliminating EFI seems like a drastic and ill-considered way of rectifying a problem that can probably be addressed through other means.

As a final comment, I would suggest that the government needs to think long and hard about how it will handle this issue in the coming weeks. If it tries to ram through the original plan on August 5th, this will remain a huge bone of contention and continue to haunt the government until the next election. If it tries to come up with a compromise, it will surely be something thrown together in haste and might generate just as much backlash as the initial plan. The only sensible approach is to back down, admit that the attempt to reform the education system has not been well handled and announce a strategy for moving forward in a more deliberative and inclusive manner.