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.

If parents want french immersion as an option I hope they are able to obtain this as an option for their children. But I feel that forcing grade 5 students to spend half their year in french is absolutely horrific, there are too many students in the schools who need to be able to read fluently at that age, and to force them into this is just subjecting them to further failure. I think people are forgetting what is important, and children being pushed along who cannot read properly are being left behind, they spend their life at the slow table, they can't understand what is going on in their classes. They are teased, they have low self esteem, and then they are forced through a half a year of french!!!! sounds like child abuse to me!!!!! Then when they get to high school they will not graduate on time but will not know this until "grade 12" cause no one will ever tell them they did not grade, they will just be put in a grade 11 class when they expect to be in a grade 12 class..... but nobody will be kept behind !!!!!! Teach the kids to read, if they want french let them go for it!!!! BUT TEACH THE KIDS TO READ!!!!

I am a parent of a student who is entering grade five this coming September. I am overwhelmed with excitment for her and what she is going to be able to learn this upcoming year. My husband and I have tried with both of our children to get them enrolled in an early immersion program. When our oldest daughter was in grade one and six, there wasn't enought students who wanted to take early immersion. So when our second child started school I was in hopes that we could get her into that program. Like with our first child, not enough students at our school was interested. So I was more then excited when I heard that they were going to have this new program at our local school this coming September. I don't have many good words to say regarding the CORE French program and so I am more then interested to see what this program has to offer our children and what this means to them being able to continue with a second language and coming from a part of the province that has mostly an English speaking population.

Here are my recommendations for the existence of EFI:
1. Have the necessary support systems inplace for those students who wish to be part of the EFI program: Methods and Resource teachers, literacy mentors, Math coaches, Teacher Assistants. There would be less streaming if we could offer these services to the children who need them
2. Offer more courses in French at the high school level so that required courses for University entrance can be taken in French.
3. Evaluate the children's French oral proficiency at varying levels while they are immersed in the language.
4. Offer a English core program to those students in the EFI program starting in grade one ( English and French Immersion teachers would have to simply switch classes to provide both Core programs.
5. Offer classes to parents so that they feel more at ease with the language.

I realize that many of these suggestions are a cost but can we put a price on the education of our children? You are willing to spend 10 million dollars to entice French immigrants to our province, why not entice your native New Brunswickers to learn a second language.

Minister Lamrock's call in on the CBC yesterday morning was disturbing to me, especially when he claimed that he still needed to see alternative plans to his elimination of EFI. I understand that he HAS been presented with an alternative plan, crafted by Professor Joe Dicks, who is part of the Second Language Centre in Faculty of Education at UNB, and assisted by experts from across the country. What Minister Lamrock now must do is actually LOOK at the proposal in a considered and open-minded way, as he has been promising all along, and reflect on whether in his rush to implement a single vision, he is forgetting that there are other choices than the hasty elimination of EFI.

I suggest looking at a grade 3 starting point for Early Immersion. This would give parents and teachers the time necessary to ensure the programme is right for each child. Also, children would obtain a firm basis in literacy in their mother tongue.

Research has shown if a student is lagging in literacy skills, intervention must occur before grade 3. Why not put the resources necessary into k-2 so that each child develops appropriately in terms of writing, reading and numeracy, and then allowing parents to make an informed choice as to whether the immersion option is right.

I firmly believe that our province needs a good cohort of NB high school graduates who can funtion professionally in French. For this, we need an immersion entry point earlier than grade 6. I started immersion in grade 7 and was always lagging behind peers who took early immersion. It took a major in French in university along with study at U de M for me to obtain the level of proficiency displayed by the early immersion graduates I observed.

I have 2 children that will soon reach school age, and I want it all for them: I believe the grade 3 entry point would provide my children with a quality education.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing this letter to parents and child care providers who want the best for their children. This letter is not about whether I love French or if I am "bilingual". This is about my experience going through the Early Immersion program and the high statistics of producing an individual like me that has high language values but a low uni-lingual paying job.
I began by taking early immersion and continued through in high school. In University, I took my Bachelor of Education in Elementary, majoring in French as a second language. I became a substitute teacher in French Immersion, as well as taught French Core classes. I sold advertizing using my french skills. But am I a success story for the Early Immersion Program......NO. On several well paying job interviews, I was denied the job because my french was not good enough.
How can that be I asked myself? My answer is simple. That is not where my talents lie. At one point I was very angry for spending so much of my educational career on a second language, but as I found success in other areas, I am only a little miffed now. Just as I love French, I love golf, however, as in any other thing, one has to be fairly good at it in order to make a living on it. I know I could take lessons from someone superior, I could of started younger, and spend numerous hours a day practicing, but would I be a successful golfer?....NO. Like any sport, that is not where my talents lie.
I have found that I am a people person. I am good with all ages and backgrounds. I am open minded and can see something special in everyone. I enjoy seeing people proud of their achievements and can encourage those who sometimes need a nudge. Human Resources, selling, I have people skills!
I also have two children. One has talents in motivational and organization skills, the other an incredible love for life , especially in animals. This wasn't something I could have seen in them so strongly until upper elementary. It makes sense to wait until later to increase intensity of french instruction. Isn't that what we do with Basketball, Trigonometry, and Biology?
Why have I waited so long to voice my opinion about supporting the upcoming changes in our education system? Because sometimes I feel I am not the best writter (I ignore my spell check to get my point across). Is that because I went through Early Immersion? I think so....but I can't prove it. But I do know something about the education system and the people running administering and running it. That is where their talents lie.

Fixing EFI

There can be no question that given the low test scores, the obvious difficulty that many of our children have communicating in English and the fact that so many end up not able to communicate in French at the end of the program, that something has to be done to fix Early French Immersion.

The Minister, together with his advisors has put forth a program that they believe will solve the failures of Early French Immersion by dealing with its presumed short comings. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity or his commitment to his own and our children in general. He, I believe, sincerely wants to fix the problem as quickly and completely as he is able.

There is, however, some doubt in my mind as to how something gets fixed by destroying it. If you take your car in to a mechanic for a tune up and he suggests taking it to a junk yard and having it crushed instead, one either believes the mechanic that the car is unfixable or you go to another mechanic. The failure of New Brunswick democracy and this Government in particular is they are not offering a second mechanics point of view. Parents of children in EFI were looking to have EFI fixed not destroyed. Most see that as a last option after everything else has been tried. In this case the Minister is saying repair is not an option and the only way to fix it is to destroy the program.

To most of us this seems excessive. To take the car analogy a bit further, we knew the car was not running the way it should but did not feel the only solution was take it to a wrecker and get another one. It seemed to us the mechanic or the Minister, was ignoring some pretty obvious repair options first.

Do I believe, as some do, that the Minister is intentionally ignoring the simpler solutions just to get rid of the program? No, I think the Minister is doing what he feels is right with the evidence laid out before him. He is neither maniacal nor evil although I think over-zealous might apply.

The Minister together with his more vocal followers in the Moncton Times and Transcript has taken a sledge hammer approach to the repair of EFI. I find it curious that the local Newspaper has supported a Government position that is largely unpopular and questionable at best and one would almost think that when regulated gas prices reach an all time high there is a feeling of peculiar camaraderie between the Government and the Oil and Gas owned newspaper.

This is not to say that the Minister is completely wrong and the Newspaper is unjustly supporting him. He and they could be completely right and the EFI program must be destroyed in order to achieve the main objective, the better education of our children. It just seems the car is still running. It just seems that the Government is being overly expeditious when a more methodical approach is called for. In other words lets try to fix the problem first and if that does not work well the Minister can say I told you so for the rest of his natural life if he so desires.
However, it would appear that the Ombudsman and the Court of New Brunswick agree with my assessment that the Minister and the Government are acting with undue haste in this matter, ignoring simpler more obvious solutions which they have in hand. They have exchanged the parental desire to do something now to fix everything now which I do not believe is realistic.

I find it ironic that as a long time advocate of Government moving more quickly that in this case my advocacy is for caution. However, I feel that where it has to do with our children, moving too fast could create a serious mistake from which there is no recovery. This is not just a policy that is being changed but a philosophy, a concept and an ideology that bilingualism is a vital part of the future of New Brunswick.

The Government and its Minister do not believe that, as most experts agree, the younger a child is the more likely it is to absorb other languages. They are saying the experts are wrong and the results confirm this. If true, it is a bitter pill to swallow that hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary are completely wrong. If, by chance, the Government is wrong then it will have created the seeds of an English only province which may well be its real objective. One might think that caution is of the order given the implications but I am sure the Minister knows more than the rest of us and caution can easily be thrown into the wind.

As I said before I do not believe that the Minister is being deliberately malicious, just so certain his policy is right that he is willing to risk the consequences to the children for his actions. I wish I could be as certain that my advocacy for a slower solution was equally as valid. I can't, but I do know that if you do it my way by tweaking the EFI program and it does not produce the desired results, you have lost nothing but time to implement the Minister's program properly..which makes more sense to me.

Based on the evidence that I have read and incorporating my own thoughts and feelings on the matter and the experience of my children* I propose the following changes be implemented with due haste and with an idea of saving EFI as a valid program:

[*xxxxxx aged xx is an example of the success if EFI. She graduated with honours, is fluently bilingual and had one of the highest scores in on her English assessments. xxxxxx aged xx dropped out of the program and yet still struggles. xxxxxx xx is an average student in EFI and does slightly better in English. xxxxxx 10 is an average EFI student who struggles with language in general but keeps within the average]

1. A longer school day for grades one and two. I believe all school aged children from grade 1 right through to grade 12 should go to school from 8:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. This decreases the amount of instruction time at the high school level which produces no positive results and leaves so many younger siblings home alone waiting for the older sibling to come home. It is foolish and pointless and no study that I have read indicates the extra half hour to an hour offers any real benefit to the teen or to the family.
If, however, the increased instruction time at the primary school level is used for English linguistic comprehension and training, the extra hour could have a major impact. This, of course, presupposes the experts are right that language skills are best taught when the children are young. It is my belief that if the child understands his or her own native language structure and comprehension, he/she will do better in intensive French training. Overall this is the major flaw to EFI. It supposes that the best way to learn French is by not being exposed to English. The children of New Brunswick are not well exposed from birth to the details and complexity of their own language and therefore their ability to grasp another with its subtleties and nuances is somewhat diminished. I would even go further and have comparative grammar as a way of highlighting the differences and further the understanding of both languages. EFI fails now because it does not rely on a basic understanding of the child's own language and the rules, structures and spellings of French will not help a child do well on English assessments. We need to keep the bulk of immersion intact to teach the language but enhance that teaching with an hour of English instruction. It may slow the immersion process of intense full time French language instruction but ultimately success in both languages will result.

2. Eliminating homework at the elementary level. I find it funny that in spite of the many studies that homework in the primary grades is more harmful than helpful to the child, the New Brunswick Government continues to advocate for it. This is further exacerbated by Immersion children getting help with their homework from unilingual parents. It is frustrating for parent and child alike and often hurts the child's grasp of the subject matter. A parent who wants to help his/her child is being forced to grapple with idiomatic phrasing that a straight translation cannot identify. The child is left with an improper understanding, the parent is frustrated and the situation blows up in anger. For example, math terminology in French is often completely different in origin and phrasing than the English, a child seeking help from his parents on his math homework will find the help a hindrance. Who does this help? Abolish it. If the studies are correct, and there are a large number of them, it serves no purpose to a child in English instruction and is a negative impact to French Immersion.
3. A further reduction in the student teacher ratio. More teachers and more teacher assistants to facilitate real one on one instruction in grades 1 through 4.
4. More computer and audio-visual resources to enhance the Immersion experience.
5. A progress review committee consisting of education professionals and parents to review the successes and the failures of the revised EFI program and possibly to implement the Minister's alternative

There are a few comments I would like to make about Education in general. There was a time when teaching was a tough job with low pay and only those who really love it would want to do it. Now with its high salary, long vacations and full holidays, it seems far too many are in it for the quality of the job rather than the vocation. Teachers today seem to be less passionate about the education they provide than they are the benefits they get. I would like to the NBTA, which I think as an organization is committed to the well-being of the children, accept a new tier of teacher that makes minimal salary and only after 5 years of teaching can they get the full benefits. This I think would weed out some of those who do it just because as jobs go its one of the best there is.

Finally, I would like to address the fact that everyone has been asked to participate in this forum to change or enhance early French Immersion.parents, educators, experts but no one has asked the children for their thoughts and input. This, to my mind, is precisely why we all fail continually to reach and to teach those we purport to care about.

Une autre erreur drastique de la part du gouvernement. On peut voir par l'attitude de M. Lamrock, qu'il n'a pas l'intention de reculer. De plus, que vaut un ombudsman et pourquoi devons nous supporter ce poste si ses recommendations ne sont pas prise en consid�ration? Je pense que M. Richard fait un tr�s bon travail et qu'il se doit d'�tre respect�. A tout bout de champs, on revient sur le fait qu'il �tait ministre de l'�ducation et qu'il n'accepte pas les changements du pr�sent ministre. Il y aurait-il jalousie? Pensez-y bien avant de faire des changements qui affecteront les �tudiants, les professeurs, les parents et les n�o-brunswickois. Un jour vous devrez faire face a ces m�me gens et on s'en rappellera.

As a former teacher, principal and District level administrator, I wish to express my full support for Minister Lamrock's decision to revamp second language education in the province. To a supporter of bilingualism and one who spent his 31 year career in the northern Districts of the province, it became abundantly clear by the late 80's that the EFI program was failing in it's expressed goal of producing large numbers of bilingual graduates while at the same time creating systemic problems compomising our fundamental obligation to provide the best possible education for all students in our charge.Unfortunatly it had been considered politically off limits and a career limiting exercise to raise pedagogically based concerns about EFI. Vacuous arguements tinged with political opportunism by the political opposition are disingenuous at best. As a long time Conservative and a supporter of a fully bilingual New Brunswick, I emplore Minister Lammrork to remain steadfast in his resolve to effect the most positive reform to education in New Brunswick in the past three decades. From a purely political perspective, there will be a Liberal sign on my lawn next election.

I fully support the decision to end EFI programs in the NB school system and hope you "stay the course." I have 2 daughters, both of which I enrolled in the English Program. One is now 2nd year University and the other is going into Grade 11. When I was struggling to make the decision as to whether to put them in the late immersion (early immersion was of absolutely no interest to me as I felt it was improtant that my daughters master their first language before attempting to master a second)a parent informed me that only the "STUPID" kids enrolled in the English program. Well...what can I say. The EFI program has and is an elitist program whereby "streaming" is alive and well and only those students that are deemed "appropriate" are granted access to the program. At a huge cost I might add to the rest of the children who deservce an education that is equal to that which is being provided to the children enrolled in the EFI program. There is an enormous amount of pressure put on parents to enroll their children in EFI becasue of the "perceived image" of having "STUPID" children enrolled in the English program.
I am a manager with the federal government and I can tell you it is a very rare youth that I have interviewed and subsequently hired that has been able to meet our minimum bilingual requirement that has been through the immersion program in this province. Very rare. So...is it working? No. I can also tell you that their English and their French grammar is extremely poor. They are not competent in either written language and I have had the pleasure of reviewing their resumes and believe me..it is not pretty. Pathetic really. So what has been accomplished? They are not proficient in either written language and are certainly not orally proficient in French.
I wish I had a solution. Perhaps there needs to be more hours in the high school immersed in the second language as opposed to the earlier grades.
Please stay the course because it is the right one. The right to be equally eduated, regardless of language, is and should be the mission and vision of the Department of Education in this province. Sadly, at this time, it is not. And that is just not right!
Good luck and be confident in the decision you have made!
Thank You

I have three major concerns regarding these changes to the Early Immersion Program. Trained as an educator, I can't believe we still hold onto the belief that a second (or third, or fourth) language is learned through language classes. All around the world, children learn language through being involved in situations where the ability to use and practice the language are readily available. It seems like we are trying to solve the problem of disparate English classes by eliminating a program that is working. Secondly, as a professional, eliminating choices on how we educate our children makes it difficult to recruit and retain people to our province. Our self-sufficiency agenda would make one think that every effort would be made to make this a go-to province rather than a have-not province. And, finally, as a parent of two elementary school children who currently attend French Immersion, I have seen the benefits of this program. Recently, while on vacation, my 9 year old son was the only person in a crowd of hundreds of people who could fluently communicate with the little boy sitting beside him. The little boy was from Quebec. What a way to demonstrate the benefits of being involved in such a fantastic program. Two kids, from the same country, with very different backgrounds and experiences, communicating in the same language. My biggest concern is the reduction in current resources and funding for the children who are grand-fathered into the existing French Immersion program. Also, I am concerned that at some point they will be streamed into the same classrooms of those who have received only four months of French rather than five years. The program was never designed to replace French Immersion, and as any educator will tell you, engagement in the classroom is critical to the successful completion of secondary education. As far as coming up with solutions that are more effective, my tax dollars pay the Minister of Education to do that work on behalf of me, and the other tax payers who want a progressive, self-sufficient province.
In the meantime, I want a fair assessment process conducted by a team of professional educators in the field of French Immersion, assurances that my children will not be disadvanted by being grand-fathered into a program that potentially could be phased out (funding/resources cut) and transparency into the decision-making process (clear answers to questions around budget dollar allocation and effectiveness of programming). I also believe the "drop our rates" can be partially attributed to lack of French options in the later grades. I would like data on this as well. Right now, it feels like we are be placated by this consultation process. I want real answers, and to really be heard.

I am vehemently opposed to the decision to eliminate the Early French Immersion Program. I would like to see an assessment processes created and conducted by Second Language experts on both existing french language programs to put forward recommnedations on how to improve/change the existing programs. If the decision on Early French Immersion remains unchanged, as a parent with two children currently enrolled (moving into Gr 3&4),I am very concerned about the focus, curriculum and funding that will exist for a program that is being phased out over time. I absolutely am supportive of the program and do not want to see my children's educational experience reduced or degraded as a result of a lack of support from the Department of Education for our province. I am also very concerned that as this program advances in the phasing out process that we will see Intensive French students combined with Early Immersion students, I do not beleive this would benefit either group.

As a parent of Early French Immersion students I would like assurances from the Province that 1)Funding and support will continue for the program. 2) These students will continue with the Early French Immersion Program until they graduation and not be combined with other French language programs. 3) That a statistically correct assessement will be done on all currently offer french language programs.

In addition to the personal concerns I have voiced about this issue, I also have professional concerns about the cancellation of this program. I am Human Resource professional with over 15 years of experience working in New Brunswick. I am currently living and working in the Saint John, NB area. Saint John is a city focused on growth and becoming an Energy Hub for Atlantic Canada. Which means a significant workforce demand for the province of New Brunswick. With the current labour shortages and significant forecasted world
-wide labour shortfalls, demand for resources will be increased. As someone who focuses professionally on attracting talented resources to our province who have a choice of any city/country in which to work, I see this change as a significant detractor for attracting talent to work in our province. If we do not have the appropriate infrastructure in term of housing, medical services, community services and most of all a solid education system, I do believe it will be difficult to attract and retain talent in our province. We are the only bilingual province in the country and we do not offer the same programs as other provinces of which we compete for resources regularly.

As a New Brunswick born citizen I am concerned with how my family taxdollars are being spent on the education system. I would like to see, with complete transparency to the process, how decisions are being made on all programming as well as which budget dollars and resources are being allocated to all programs english and french. I would expect that Premier Shawn Graham and Education Minister Kelly Lamrock to create an impartial process to assess our education system and include the elected parent representatives in the decision making process. Our government needs to take the appropriate amount of time and due diligence prior to rendering a decision. To make a decision of this magnitude in 6 weeks is not appropriate, the parents and children of this province deserve a fair and true consultation process.

WEll PEOPLE it's 2008 and these children are our futur. Who are you (gov.) to take our rights away we should have CHOICE in edjucation of our child and you deny us this right. I am a product of starting in a french school when i knew no french at all my first language is english. I'm very happy my parent for making the DECISION of sending me to a french school as today i can speak/write/read in both languages....This subject is very upsetting to me cause parents should not have to fight like this to get our kids the edjucation they deserve....At this age our children are like sponges and they get the base of the knowledge they will carry forward. Not all children learn at the same past and i agree but don't punish all the children for some. I've been teaching my child as much french as I cn at home but again i'm not a teacher or nor would I want to be all I want I for these teachers to have all the tools they can get and teach the best program they know. Including early french as the problem is not the children or the teachers the problem is the Govern. and the testing they do to figure out if this program is working because i'm comfortable in saying that every single young person i've talked to that has started early immersion is as intelligent as does that didn't and the earlier you start the larger benefit you get. thank you! Time to turn this around and do what's right and give us the program back

I am the mother of a child in grade eleven. My daughter is enrolled in the early French Immersion program in district 6. I feel that we should keep the option of early, late or no Immersion in the hand of the parents. They know their children and their capabilities and they know how they want their children to be educated. New Brunswick is officially a bilingual province and as a parent of an English child I was glad to have the option of having my daughter learn a second language. An overall decision covering every child groups us as if we were all the same person with the same mind not as the individuals we strive to have our children become.

I heard on the radio that Early French Immersion children are not as well educated as those children who took the first six years of their education in English. I extremely disagree to this comment. My child as well as her friends are very well educated and are very bright individuals. When my daughter was about to enter grade one I went to an information meeting about French Immersion. The facts that were presented at that time were just the opposite of what is now being presented to the public. We were told that when given an exam in English at the High School level most Early French Immersion students ranged in the top percentile, Late Immersion at the middle level and most of the students that were educated in English only were in the bottom percentile. This last comment does not, of course, include those children with learning difficulties. What happened that now the Early Immersion students are not getting a good education? If you want to have a look at why children may not be getting as well educated as other provinces you may want to have a look at you curriculum. My daughter has been taught eight years of poetry. EIGHT! Yes poetry should be taught but why not teach them how to spell or read instead and maybe a little bit of good penmanship because that is very lacking as well. In my job I work with teenagers. The majority of them can not spell even the extremely smart ones that went through school in the English only program. Why are our children expected to know every type of poetry inside out but can't even spell? I would also like to know why in grade eleven students in English classes are made to reiterate the emphasis on syllable and how to apply them properly. This is a skill that was taught in elementary school if you say our children are not educated well enough maybe, as I stated above, you should look at the content of the curriculum and not the language the children are being educated in.

I believe as tax payers in an officially bilingual province parents should have the option of what language they want their children educated in.

Minister Lamrock,

Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that you have decided to abide by Judge McLellan's decision by launching public consultations on the future of Early French Immersion (EFI) in New Brunswick. I do, however, find it unfortunate that it took a group of concerned parents going to court for this consultation process to finally be undertaken. The initial consultation was for a two-week period only, including March Break, and was not widely publicized at the time. This helps to explain, at least in part, why many New Brunswickers feel that their views were not taken into account, and also why the decision to abolish EFI has been the subject of such controversy throughout the province.

My comments will focus on two main points: (1) your government's seeming indifference to criticism of the Croll-Lee report, and (2) possible alternatives to the complete and immediate abolition of EFI.

Reaction to the Croll-Lee Report

As you know, the very report on which you based your decision to abolish EFI has met with considerable criticism from several university researchers, among them Matthew Litvak, research professor at the University of New Brunswick (Saint John); Diana Hamilton, research professor at Mount Allison University; Rodrigue Landry, director of the Universit� de Moncton's Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities; and Jimmy Bourque, director of the Centre for Research and Development in Education at the Universit� de Moncton.

Litvak and Hamilton showed examples of numerous factual errors in the Croll-Lee report, revealed the report's serious lack of objectivity, and highlighted its many methodological weaknesses. Litvak's and Hamilton's rigorous and methodical analysis thus raised serious concerns about the credibility of this report on which the government based its decision to abolish EFI.

Landry and Bourque found similar issues with the report, including biased presentation of results, statistical errors and faulty statistical reasoning. They argue that the conclusions of the Croll-Lee report are not based in fact and that, ultimately, the changes planned by the Department of Education will not achieve the anticipated results. Landry and Bourque go so far as to say that the proposed changes will harm anglophones' prospects in the workplace.

I find your reaction to these criticisms, which you have seemed to cast aside in your public comments on the issue, to be most unfortunate. This apparent indifference stands in stark contrast to public reaction, which has been anything but indifferent. In the face of such an important issue, it would have been incumbent on your government to clearly show why it stands by the Croll-Lee report. Your failure to do so has only helped feed public skepticism and suspicion regarding the government's intentions.

Possible Alternatives to the Abolition of EFI

In an interview with Radio-Canada's Le r�veil program on June 12, 2008, you were very clear in describing the kinds of comments you were looking for as part of this public consultation. You specifically stated that you were looking for alternate solutions and new ideas, not criticism of the government's decision to abolish EFI. Though I find it curious that you are asking New Brunswickers to propose solutions and ideas given that you chose not to consider the opinions of several subject-matter experts, I would nonetheless like to put forth the following:

1. In light of public reaction to your decision, and especially considering the many questions surrounding the credibility of the Croll-Lee report, I propose that you (1) suspend your decision to abolish EFI in September 2008, and (2) commission a new study on the issue, thus ensuring that students wishing to register in EFI be able to do so and that such an important decision as the abolition of EFI is not made in haste. I further propose that this study be carried out by subject matter specialists, that a period of real public consultation be initiated (more than just a website) and that the government seriously weigh the pros and cons of such an important decision.

2. Given the success of the intensive French program, I propose that you offer this program to interested students as of grade 5 while at the same time maintaining EFI in schools where it already exists. One of the key benefits of EFI, which unfortunately tends to be overlooked, is the opportunity it provides for contact with the language, culture and reality of francophones in New Brunswick. It is thus my belief that the advantages of EFI are not limited to linguistic competencies alone. Abolishing EFI would mean denying most young anglophones any contact with the French language and culture before the age of 11, thus in some ways denying the very existence of New Brunswick's other linguistic community, which represents more than a third of the province's population. The decision to abolish EFI goes against the very principle of dialogue between cultures, and risks having an adverse impact on how each linguistic community views and understands the other's language and culture. EFI is by far the best way to promote this cultural and linguistic dialogue among our youth.

In conclusion, it is my hope that my comments will be favourably received and that you will avoid making any precipitous decisions on the future of EFI. I thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Dear Minister Lamrock,
I am both a teacher and a parent, and I wish to share my views from both perspectives.

First, as a teacher I have witnessed the deplorable situation that has developed over the years whereby our students are streamed into ghettoes by the very existence of French Immersion. For many years I taught Grade 2 French Immersion and despite my best efforts to provide help to struggling students, it is usually a problem with learning math or reading. It is hardly ever a problem with the children's ability to speak French. The reality is that the struggle to learn Math in French is just too much for many of our students, and their parents pull them from Immersion despite the extra help we provide. I do not see a way to fix the problem, nor do I even believe it is wise to try. Children should learn to read, write and count in their mother tongue. The only thing we should teach them to do in French is to master that language. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support your decision to eliminate Early Immersion and to implement Intensive French, which I have also taught, and which allows us to focus on language acquisition rather than on other subject areas.

As a Mom I have to say that I believe my children deserve bilingualism, but not at the cost of their early literacy and math skills. I have two children in early immersion now and I am concerned about the impact this is having on their first language literacy skills. Luckily I can help them at home because I have received considerable training in reading development. I have twin boys in Kindergarten this year and I am very hopeful that you will not reverse your decision to eliminate early FI. I want very much for them to be in an English program from Grade 1, but I will be completely honest and tell you that I would choose FI over a streamed Core French progam where the bulk of the behavior problems end up being placed,and where teachers struggle to address so many high learning needs. That, quite frankly, is the worst possible place to try to educate a child.

So, Mr. Lamrock, please do not succomb to the pressure of a vocal minority. I believe you have given this serious consideration and your decision was based on the realities of New Brunswick's public education system. You and your staff know the situation much better than do the emotional extremists who want to hold on to a program that has never lived up to its promise, and that has created a very damaging streamed system. To continue to support that streaminng is professionally and morally repugnant.

Courage to you, Mr. Lamrock, and to your colleagues and your staff. Stay the course and give all of our children the education they deserve.