Government of New Brunswick

Department of Education

Home

Comments

Education Minister Kelly Lamrock wishes to thank all those who took time to submit comments.

Please note that we will only post submissions from people who have given us explicit consent to do so. We will not post the following:

Submissions received on-line that indicate "Not public" on the web form
Submissions sent direct by email, letter or fax which do not explicitly ask us to post their comments or which divulge personal information about third parties (in order to comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act)
Submissions that contain statements considered to be defamatory, libelous, hateful, or of a commercial nature.
Duplicate submissions

Please also note that because each submission must be reviewed in the context of the above, there will normally be a time lag of between 2-3 days between receiving a submission and posting it on the website.

As of 4:30 p.m. Friday, July 25, 2008, the French Second Language consultation has concluded. Any comments received after that time will not be posted, but will be brought to the Minister's attention.

Improving French Second Language Programming Within a Quality Education System(pdf)

Comments appear in the language received.

I APPRECIATE THE INVITATION TO SPEAK FRANKLY ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO OUR N.B. EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

1. I am very concerned that the decision to make such major changes to the educational system(s) in N.B. has been pushed forward without the proper democratic process until lately. It is too close to the new school year to implement such changes properly and with full staff training OR SCHEDULING. There are too many unforeseen complications at this late date. I would like to recommend a one year feasability study.

2. Early French Immersion works well in and of itself. The Middle School level needs to provide more actual time on task in French courses and on speaking and writing skills. The Sr.HIGH NEEDS MORE TIME ON TASK AND MORE COMPULSORY FRENCH COURSES as the student gets closer to graduation. Oral interviews should be done EVERY year, as we do at our school. It is a skill one acquires with practice.

3. CORE French can AND DOES work AND ACHIEVES ITS GOALS- given enough training and raising the expectations of teachers of second language in Elem. schools. It is mostly listening comprehension based now- I have taught both CORE AND IMMERSION. CORE NEEDS MORE SUPPORT AND REAL=LIFE EXPOSURE TO FRANCOPHONES AND ACADIAN CULTURE.(DIALOGUE N.B.;MUSIC,THE ARTS, DANCE,ETC. EXPOSING ENGLISH/OTHER LANGUAGE CHILDREN TO FRENCH CULTURE IS is SO important to our two language communities and our political futures.

4. The GRADE 1-4 FRENCH PROGRAM must remain and lead into the grade 5 intensive CORE program. The Grade 5 program WILL NOT WORK without the earlier training in Grades 1-4. JUST AS A CHILD LISTENS AND ABSORBS SOUNDS, ACCENT, SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY/VERBS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, the second language learner also needs the time to absorb and comprehend the basics of the communication skills. As a teacher of 32 years experience, a BILINGUAL second language TEACHER HERE IN N.B., I KNOW that we all learn language by listening, then take the risk of speaking, practise those skills then move on to reading and finally writing. THE Gr5 INTENSIVE Core French program has been successful as a 'pilot' but results of the mandatory enrolment in this course are not yet available, as it has only just begun. WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL WE SEE MORE RESULTS IN SMALLER GROUPS BEFORE ELIMINATING all FRENCH FROM GRADES 1-4?

5. Positive attitudes are best fostered at the youngest of ages- we know this. WHEN SCHOOL STARTS, SO DOES FRENCH, ENGLISH, MATH, MUSIC, ETC. Students and parents have been accepting this since the mid-1960's. WHY RUIN A GOOD THING?

6. English literacy and streaming are HUGE issues. I know this from working in the schools of N.B. Many parents place their children in French Immersion to avoid placing them in ENGLISH stream classrooms where there are so many more learning difficulties, behaviour issues and negative influences. THE ENGLISH PROGRAM NEEDS HELP- SMALLER CLASSES, MORE RESOURCE TIME, MORE GUIDANCE STAFF, MORE SOCIAL SERVICE INVOLVEMENT, MORE MENTORSHIP AND LITERACY TIME- NUTRITIONISTS, BREAKFAST PROGRAMS,FREE LUNCH PROGRAM, TRANSPORTATION TO SCHOOL CULTURAL EVENTS, AFTERSCHOOL TUTORING/CLUBS AND SPORTS FOR EVERYONE...PARENTING PROGRAMS, 'men who read" modelling, artists in schools, -you name it..MANY, MANY of our English stream kids DO NOT HAVE A POSITIVE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE EXCEPT AT SCHOOL.

7. IF a child cannot read by grade 4-then the other subjects should be put on hold until the child can read.tHIS INCLUDES MIDDLE SCHOOL WHERE I see some students entering our school at grade 6 with a grade 2 OR 3 reading level!!

8. SUGGESTION ; PERHAPS IMMERSION- WHICH WORKS WELL- COULD BE AN OPTION FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKENDS.
OR..
PERHAPS EVERYONE COULD STUDY LANGUAGES AT A GRADE 13 LEVEL WHICH WOULD ALSO COUNT AS CREDIT FOR UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
OR..
PERHAPS THE EXTENDED CORE PROGRAM COULD BE OFFERED SO THAT STUDENTS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE MATH IN FRENCH BUT SOCIAL STUDIES, DRAMA, MUSIC, ART, GYM AND CONVERSATIONAL COURSES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO IS ALREADY DEEMED LITERATE IN THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.

9. I TOTALLY AGREE THAT MATH SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH.

Thank you for reading my letter and considering the points I have made.

I believe that the decisions regarding Early French Immersion put forth by the Government of New Brunswick are well thought out and appropriate in light of financial constraints as well as the poor numbers of children who follow the program to completion.
There has been a lot of press from parents who want the program, but virtually none from the supporters of the government's position. This is probably due to the fact that they support what has been put forth and do not feel it necessary that they respond to a policy change that is being implemented.
If parents wish their children to speak French fluently, there are ample opportunities for them.
1) They could speak to their children in French.
(Some may need to have their own lessons first) 2) They could enrol them later in the program.
3) They could insist that they take French all through high school.

It is up to parents to instill in their children the desire to learn French.

Based on personal observations as both an educator and a parent, I feel that one of the main reasons parents want their children in Early French Immersion is to have them in a homogeneous group - no special needs students, as is the case in regular classrooms. These mixtures of students are what enrichment is all about, not segregation.
If parents want a private school education for their young children, they should send them to private schools and pay for it.
There is plenty of time for students to learn French. Let us put the money where it is going to serve the majority not the minority of students.
I fully support the government's decision to cut Early French Immersion.

Do not cut EFI. I don't need to list the reasons. They are all on the record and articulated by people smarter and more involved than me.

The Intensive French programme is not for everyone. One size does not fit all!!!

I fully support Mr. Lamrock's decision to make changes to the French program in New Brunswick. I support this as a teacher and as a parent. I taught at the elementary level for over 30 years and I saw firsthand the effects of EI . It can only be considered an elitist program . Parents were for the most part choosing EI for their children because of the prestige attached, or so that their child would not be separated from friends, or because they did not want their child put into a classroom with behaviour problems and disabilities, or because they felt they might be bored. Parents were sometimes advised at the kindergarten level that it would be best for their child to enter an English classroom in the fall , but chose not to heed this advice. Subsequently many of these same children withdrew from the EI program in Gr.2 or Gr.3 and were placed in an English classroom. I was the recipient of a number of these students, and after one or two years of no English instruction, they are placed in your room without any support and you are expected to bridge the gaps. This would be fine except that you are usually at maximum class size, you already have half of your class on SEP's or IEP's, and often teach a combined class. This is what EI did to the English system. This scenario is not true of an EI classroom. Their classrooms are usually small in number and contain very few behaviour problems and students with needs. I have seen our system full of inequalities for teachers and their students. Some people suggest that the solution is to provide EI for all schools, including the rural areas, and to provide M&R and other specialists to accommodate all these children with needs in the EI program. It all sounds wonderful, but our province can not support this economically. We do not have the money that Alberta and Ontario.
I was rather surprised that core French was being eliminated, but administrators, teachers, parents, and students recognized over 20 years ago that it was not working. Mr. Lamrock is the only minister holding this portfolio that has ever addressed this problem and I applaud him. In the disrict where I taught, FSL was totally ignored. The FSL teachers rarely had meetings to discuss their programs, methods ,concerns, etc. The French co-ordinator did not visit FSL classrooms. It was a forgotten program!In the past few years, some teachers in our disrict chose to pilot the AIM program at the elementary level. Teachers, parents, and students loved the program and I was amazed at the comprehension and interest of the children starting at a very young age. I wish this program had been piloted earlier because I feel Mr. Lamrock would have been impressed by the results and motivated to implement it. The intensive French program has not been met with the same enthusiasm by teachers as it appears to be very unstructured. I don't disagree with French starting in Gr.5, but I am not sure this is the program to use unless you could somehow incorporate the approach of the AIM program.
In my heart I do not agree with EI! Children need to have at least 3 years instruction in their mother tongue to gain competency in literacy and numeracy, before moving on to a second language.
I did not choose EI for my own children for a number of reasons and they have grown up to be successful adults, living and working in New Brunswick. I have never regretted my decision, although I was pressured by friends and teachers at various levels to reconsider. One did choose Late Immersion, which we were extremely happy with, and the other chose English, which we were equally happy with.
I will end by saying that I admire Mr. Lamrock for standing by his beliefs. I agree with most of his recommendations and I sincerely hope the uncertainty surrounding the fall will end soon. We all want what is best for the children of New Brunswick. Equality is a great starting point.

My son, just finished grade 4 and will be entering grade 5 in the fall. I do not want him in the intensive French programme as he is not yet able to read or write in English. He cannot get a Teacher's Assistant despite the requests from our family and his psycologist that he be provided with one. Should I not have the right to choose if my child is forced into a second language programme before he has even learned the basics of his mother tongue.

Minister Lamrock

Dear Sir,

Thank you for taking the time to revisit the changes in the French Immersion program. It shows a great deal of respect for your constituents of your district.

I am writing a letter of support for the continuation of the early immersion program. My experience with this program and the core program are reflected in my following comments.

The French Immersion program statistics clearly indicate that if our goal is a bilingual province that produces French speaking students early immersion is the answer. The early immersion allows children to better prepare for an adult life of employment opportunities. The children who are able to achieve bilingual status are going to have more earning potential and thus contribute to the tax base which supports all of our lives in some way. This consideration deserves no less respect than the expense spent on integration of special needs children who will never be able to contribue to the financial burdens we all share in the special needs programs. While "cultural" awareness of this variety of conditions is necessary it certainly should not be given priority of our common pool of funds at the expense of limiting the potential of the French program.

If you consider the matter strictly on statistics moving the higher scoring students into the lower scoring is just padding the numbers. You are not actually improving the scores of the other students. The early immersion program has consistently shown higher scores. You will not achieve improving core program by bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. You will only limit the potential of the children who are capable of achieving the extra accomplishment.

The district is limited currently with access to many jobs that would provide a living and substantial income. Education is the answer to improving that fact of life for our children. Walmart is not going to provide a living and substantial income to this future generation. They certainly aren't going to provide enough taxes to support us all then either. If you want the future of this community to expand and improve you must not limit this generations opportunity to maximize their potential through their education.

Eliminating Early French Immersion is not going to eliminate the social, economic, genetic, environmental situations that create boundries to success. You are strictly going to manipulate the figures to make everyone look better on the backs of the top scores whether they were in English or French. The core is not producing acceptable results in any area and that stands on its own record. There is no question that their results are not acceptable and must be addressed.

If we are a bilingual province we should be obligated to set a goal to accomplish the best results possible and Early Immersion has clearly demonstrated this is the path to take.

Again, I thank you for your time and consideration and wish you clear thinking in your decision making process. The impact of your decision today will not be quickly rectified if it is the wrong one. So tread lightly.

I would like to see the government adopt the recommendations of the NB Ombudsman. This would allow for a full discussion of the issue, and time to develop creative solutions that address the streaming issue without compromising French second language training as in the current proposal.

I have 3 young children,2 in school and one to start in September 2009.There is much wrong with the current system.The priority is not on the children's education at all.The demands of the teacher's come first.There is no way our children can compete on an international stage with such a wobbly start.There are more days off than days there.This past school year,not once after Christmas did the kids go to school Monday to Friday-every long weekend was lengthened by at least a day,snow days,professional development days(I am a nurse,I get none of these).The entire month of June is a joke,once provincal testing is done so is school.I agree that smaller class size is necessary,but teachers are very well paid with way to much time off.The kids no that nothing really matters because you can't fail,no one ever fails.The entire debate over when to start French is the tip of the iceberg.You can't say that Mr.Lamrock has made some good ideas because you'll be called anti-French.I am not anti-French but I mind that there is no acceptable English program available.I want my kids to learn their mother tongue first,which is English.Why is the entire English culture disregarded?There are no trips to see Anne of Green Gables,but everyone must go to Le Pays de la Sagouine.The French Immersion kids can't spell in English.You can't really as a parent put kids in the English program because it is full of special needs and those that tried French and couldn't cope-the kids know that the English program is a lower standard.I think the children of this province need to graduate from high school bilingual;able to read,write and speak reasonably well in both.I do not feel that this process must start in Kindergarten,I think children should start their schooling in their mother tongue.I do think grade 5 leaves it too late.Perhaps we could stop dividing kids into to camps,teach everyone French.The special needs children need more support and a consistent framework at school to reach whatever potential they have.Lumping all those children into the English program has created an English ghetto and as an English parent I believe that is not fair.I have no choice I have to put my kids into the French Immersion because the standard of teaching in the English program is so low,the English kids are labelled as slow.Why is it that these special needs children can be integrated into English but not French?I want an answer to that.To make our children truly competetive on a world stage we have got major work to do.The needs of the children must come first.They need to be taught basic phonics,math and science.They need to fail on occasion to learn.Teachers need to step up to the plate and teach,not whine about working 6 hour days half the year.School should be open,if buses are not running because of weather then those that can get there should.They do this on PEI.Maybe all those Professional Development long weekend extenders could be done in July.The rest of the planet works year round and it is long past time teachers did the same.The province needs to invest in quality early education for the school system to work.Children need to arrive in Kindergarten ready to learn.That means supporting quality eary intervention and preschools.Kindergarten should begin at age 5.These 4 year old babies are sent to school because parents can't afford one more year of daycare.In my opinion,the children of this province would be better served with a quality preschool program for 3-5 year olds then Kindergarten.Affordable daycare for infants to 3 years needs to be available.Parents who choose to stay home with their children should be funded and assisted to do so.We need to put children first,they did not ask to be born,we must provide them with the tools to be productive adults.

I am one of the silent majority who doesn't attend the rallies or write to the editor. As a parent of a 13 and 15 year old who went through the French core program, I applaud the proposed changes. In elementary school, my children learned very little French despite taking it every day for 5 years. That time would have been much better spent on art, music, Phys Ed etc. Anyone who has ever sat in a core French classroom can immediately appreciate that because of streaming there are too many students with issues in one room. This streaming means that all the students in the core classes are short changed in their education. As a province, we can not continue what we are doing now. The elimination of the early FI program will give better balanced classrooms, a more enriched curriculum and will be free up countless dollars to improve the education of all New Brunswickers in math, literacy & science. I have always marveled at Europeans who speak multiple languages & have learned them in school as a second and third language. Why can't we do the same for our children without requiring them to take all of their instruction in a second language?

Bravo Mr. Lamrock!! I have been a teacher in this province since 1975 and retired in June of this year! I have taught grade 3 and 4 and have witnessed on the front lines what Early Immersion has created. We definitely have a 2-tiered system and your government has addressed the need to equalize education for ALL our clientele. I believe what you have proposed will indeed support more students in becoming bilingual.
As I teacher on the English side I have experienced years where more than half my class were on SEP's creating, as you can imagine, a wide range of ability levels as well as behavioral issues. Some years found me spending far too much time on classroom management skills before I could get into the teaching of the curriculum!! No wonder parents opt for Early Immersion when 100% of the special needs children go into 50% of the classrooms!! Many parents have told me that they opt for Early Immersion due to the streaming (unbalanced classes). Thanks to you and your government for having the political strength to correct an inequity that has been allowed to go on far too long!
As a parent,I hummed and hawed with putting my own children in Early Immersion and decided that a sound background in their mother tongue was more important. They have both been successful academically - one having attained a Master's degree in Biology while the other is studying towards a Master's degree in the Political Science area. They went through the "Core" program and are the first to admit that it was far from ideal!! Your proposed program should alleviate these problems still in existence today!
I am in total agreement of what you have proposed and hope that the "silent majority" will make their thoughts known over the next few weeks.

We know that the programs that prepare the professionals in our current education systems do not emphasize scientific training. Yet, many of their graduates rise to become influential administrators. As a result, the education delivery system is often ineffective because educational efforts are based on un-validated, ineffective, inappropriate, ill designed methods. Educational professionals and agencies are most likely to recommend the types of services with which they are most familiar. These often are not state-of-the-art or even appropriate educational options, but rather the most common, mundane, and minimally effective ones. Because the field of education in New Brunswick is not a research-based profession, most educators lack many of the basic skills needed to be effective consumers of professional research reports. This reliance on what looks like it might work and "common sense" have led to the adoption of fad solutions. The acceptance of the now discredited Croll-Lee report is just another example. Ignoring the overwhelming body of literature that would support a decision to retain Early French Immersion is a demonstration of the ignorance of the minister and his advisors. Therefore I am writing to appeal to the Minister and his advisors to reconsider this decision based on misinformation and do the requisite background work which I am sure will alter your opinion.

Mr. Lamrock,

1. Reference has been made by you and others to the 'silent majority' that supposedly supports your proposed changes to the education system. How can anyone possibly know what the majority thinks on this issue? The only sensible way to find out is to conduct an in-depth public opinion poll. Any proper public consultation on a major issue would include this as an essential part of determining the state of public opinion.

2. I support the proposal that EFI be started in kindergarten. Or keep it as is, starting in grade one, but provide greater French instruction in kindergarten so that all children have been exposed to the language prior to parents deciding whether to enroll children in French immersion.

3. Place much greater emphasis on providing information to parents about French immersion before they decide whether to enroll their children - especially to those groups that you have identified as being less likely to enroll their kids. Much of the reluctance to put children in French immersion probably stems from lack of understanding (e.g. how the program works, whether it interferes with literacy development, whether parents have to know French to help with homework, etc.).

4. The open-ended nature of this consultation is a useful first step where people can put forward all sorts of opinions and ideas, but clearly this will not produce any sort of coherent plan for restructuring the education system. The next step needs to be for people to have an opportunity to comment on a specific plan - the plan that will be announced on August 5th - to express their support or opposition and make suggestions for amendment. In other words, this consultation process has to allow for public input at more than one stage, which means extending the process and delaying any changes until September 2009 at the earliest.

Good Day,

I am a mother of three and a N.B. Educator. I have taught Core french, English, EFI and LFI. I am a fluently bilingual anglophone and product of the Core program.

I VEHEMENTLY oppose the cancellation of EFI but herald the implementation of PIF. I strongly feel that Dr. Dicks is on the right track!!!!

Furthermore, we spend lots of time and resources on the struggling student ,albeit warranted, however next to no time is provided for enrichment. Don't all our students deserve attention? EFI can provide that with resource help too. Earlier is better! The mounds of data support it.

I find it appalling that the province that taught me to teach FSL now is telling me that all I learned is somehow null and void. There are an enormous amount of myths and falsehoods on this website. Leave the research to the experts. It is their life's work!

PLEASE refrain from making any changes until Sept. 2009. Teachers, parents and students need more time to prepare. I cannot fathom how you will find enough french teachers in time that are QUALIFIED since I cannot even get a french supply teacher. These young children DESERVE our best. I love the language too much to see it masacred in this way. Beware!! Hasty decisions are often poor decisions!

I simply cannot believe that eliminating Early Fr. Imm. is the best way to go..FOR WHO?? Our gov't or our kids.... I would like to voice my opinion from the experience that I have been through...I was born in Quebec, moved to N.B. when I was 14 yrs old. Moved in an English town, couldn't speak a word of English. I had to learn it, I didn't have a choice. After living in N.B. for 37 yrs, I still have an accent when I speak English due to the fact that I was older when I learned a second language. My brother and sisters were much younger than me and they don't have the accent...I have done some research and the best age to learn a second language is before the age of 10. I have read the other comments that people wrote saying that kids should learn their first language before learning another one...Well, I have a few things to say here. I have 2 children and they were brought up to speak only french at home. When they entered kindergarten, they couldn't speak english. It sure didn't take them long to learn english...my daughter wasn't as fortunate as my son, she couldn't start LFI until grade 6. My son started in grade 1. Both of my kids, now 21 and 16, would rather speak english over french. They don't like speaking french, so no one can tell me that an anglophone would loose their language if they are put in EFI in grade 1. I remember supplying in my daughter's class when she was in gr. 8 and one day, I caught her speaking french like it was her second language, she was speaking it with an accent just like her other friends. She didn't want her friends to make fun of her because she was french.

I have been in the school system for quite a few years. I have also tutored french to EFI and LFI students. You cannot compare both...Early Imm. students are more confident and are not afraid to speak up even in class. But as for the Late Imm. students, they are very shy. First of all, at the Middle School, they don't teach them their sounds. So, how are they going to learn? Sure, they can write or read it, but when it comes to speak it, they won't. They are afraid to say something that won't sound right. I have tutored a few students from a LFI class. After 3-4 months, they could see the difference in the sounds. They had noticed that their friend's sounds weren't very good. I know what they are going through. Teenagers can be cruel sometimes. I was made fun of when I learned english at 14 yrs old. They didn't realized the pain they put me through and I can feel how the LFI students are dealing with their insecurities in speaking french.

A few of my friends teach French Immersion and they were told by the school district not to talk about this with anyone...why wouldn't they be able to voice their opinions? They should have a say when it comes to the future of their children. I am now teaching french to adults, some with late immersion background. I have taught doctors, lawyers, gov't workers and they all told me the same thing. They are not confident to speak it because they have never learned the proper sounds. The proper way to go is to learn it as early as grade 1. I am now tutoring someone that was in intensive french in grade 5. I started tutoring her when she was in gr. 4. I thought for sure that by the end of gr. 5, she would speak french. Sure, she can write it, read it but she won't speak it, she doesn't know how. I strongly disagree with the intensive french in gr. 5, I believe it is a waste of time.

Please, think twice about closing the EFI program. We are living in a bilingual province, so what does this teach our kids????

The Dr. Joe Dicks/Paula Kristmanson report is an excellent alternative plan that would benefit more students of varying abilities. I think it is a much better option. I understand that Ottawa uses this recommendation (EFI and PIF) and if it is good enough for the capital of the country one would think it would work for N.B. The goal of intermediate french is unacceptable. Students need a chance to obtain an avanced level of french in order to have more options as a graduate looking for a job. It costs thousands of dollars to reach a superior level of french as an adult if you only have intermediate ability.

Minister Lamrock,
I am an EFI teacher in our education system who has been asked to stay quiet for some time now on the elimination of EFI. I am glad to finally be able to share my views on this matter.
I believe Early French Immersion works. You are welcome to come in my classroom and test my middle school students. Most will show you they have the proficiency you are looking for. So, if they have the needed proficiency in Middle School, where does the problem lie? One major problem, in my opinion, is that once students enter high school they are no longer immersed in the French language. Of course, those who continue through the program take courses in French but the purpose of the EFI program is no longer met - students are no longer immersed in their second language. This can only have a negative effect on their proficiency level once they reach grade 12.
The topic of streaming has been coming up time and time again. I agree that to some extent, EFI has a streaming effect. Have you ever considered however that with your new program, streaming will only be pushed back from grade 1 to grade 6 when it is quite evident to everyone involved - parents, teachers and students - who IS and who ISN'T capable being successful in the late immersion program? I therefore wonder how this new program will be any different with regards to streaming.
As it stands right now, when a child experiences difficulty in EFI, they are switched to the core English program. What about having Methods and Resource teachers who speak French and who can support our students? Instead of overburdening our core English teachers, we could keep these struggling students in EFI and give them the support they need and deserve. Switching them from EFI to English is an easy way to "fix" the problem but truly often doesn't solve anything as they experience the same problems in their native tongue.
On the plus side, I do support you in your decision to eliminate the core French program and replace it with Intensive French. I do see success in the Intensive French program but I think we should be using it as it is intended - to replace the core French program, not EFI. Comparing Intensive French to EFI is like comparing apples to oranges.
You've stated time and time again that you are looking for our children to become bilingual citizens of New Brunswick. If this is truly your mandate, shouldn't your focus be on the acquisition rather than the learning of a second language. I learned Spanish when I was in university, this doesn't make me bilingual in any way. Please reconsider your decision to eliminate the EFI program. I am at the forefront on a daily basis and have been for years. EFI works. Give us some support and some resources to help improve the program, don't get rid of it.

I applaud any effort to improve the education of our children and am delighted that my only child will start kindergarten this Fall in District 18.
My concern lies with the abolishment of EFI in NB and the impact it will have on my child. I am a product of the anglophone NB school system as EFI or any immersion program was not available during my schooling years. I had hoped that my child would have had the opportunity to enroll in EFI as I saw my younger sister experience it from grade 1 thru 12 and is now actually an administrator in FSL. I understand your desire to improve our overall French language training yet question why the removal on EFI at grade 1 and adopt a program to start at grade 5 only. At this point in a childs school years they are entrenched in routine, relationships with peers and embarking on one of their greatest personal adventures called puberty. At this stage of a young persons life they are self conscious and not always willing to "step outside the box" and start learning a whole new language. My belief is to teach them young and give them the resources needed to be successful. These resources are not only school books, reading material and the like, but human resources trained in educating our young people in a language not their mother tongue and predominately not spoken at home. I am with the understanding the EFI was not as successful due to the lack of human resources available to teach ALL children, not just the ones that are seemingly "smarter" or had an easier time adjusting.. But all children. I dont profess to know everything about everything, but I know I want the best for my child and I dont believe that abandoning the EFI programe is a good choice for our children who are are future of New Brunswick.

I have read and support the document "An Alternative Plan for FSL in New Brunswick" by Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson. It offers some well-considered options for providing our children with quality opportunities to learn French as a second language. I stand behind the ideas in this document and urge you to consider what is being proposed. The wisest thing to do, at this time, is to announce that EFI is under review and will not be cancelled in haste. It is well understood that children learn a second language better the earlier it is introduced. It makes absolutely no sense to cancel the EFI program in a bid to solve our academic woes! To save face, launch a review of our education system and eventually announce (to nobody's surprise) that EFI will continue, with support and enhancements. Please consider the report about which I am writing!!

The following are my suggestions:

1. Delay implementing a new education program for one year so that schools will have time to prepare and so that proper consultation with experts in second language acquisition can be achieved.

2. Remove Kelly Lamrock from the position of Education Minister as he no longer holds any credibility and has broken all trust with the public.

2. Croll and Lee should be acknowledged as erroneous, and therefore, their recommendation to eliminate EFI must also be acknowledged as erroneous.

3. Consult the other existing reports that had been shelved, such as Roherick etc.

4. Language Acquisition Experts must be consulted (Dr. Joe Dicks, Dr. Paula Kristmanson, etc.).

5. Consider seriously Dr. Dicks' alternative option, which Lamrock has already received.

6. Keep Early French Immersion since it works in other provinces, and since Lamrock has also acknowledged that earlier is better for learning a language.

7. Keep Core French and add Intensive French, as it was intended.

8. Do not count test scores of special needs children who are exempt from these tests.

9. Add resources to EFI to help students with special needs, since they are most able to succeed in EFI, but not in LFI.

10. Study and learn from existing successful educational models, stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

Thank you for having the courage to change the French Immersion Program. I was placed in Early Immersion in Grade 1 and it has failed me in every way possible. How can one succeed in life and in business when they have not even developed a love for and learned all that there is in their first language? If French is your first language, French school would be where you develop a love for and learn your first language. As each year in school went by, my confidence level went down and my love of language was destroyed as I struggled and struggled to succeed with my limited knowledge of the English language. It is still a challenge today.

Tne world is becoming a very small place. Personally, my business interactions ( which are global ) take place in English. I have travelled all over the world and communicated in - ENGLISH! We must prepare our children for this with a strong foundation. To say you MUST learn French in Grade One or you will not learn it at all is incorrect... I am 38 and learning Italian. Because I did not learn this in Grade One, does this mean I can't do it?

This system has failed me... please do not fail any one else. Be strong and stay the course. Change is good. Let's develop a love of our language , French or English, first before we take on a second language. Trust me. I know.

I am so upset about this whole french immersion thing! It's ridiculous that they want to take it away. My daughter started FI in Grade 1 and has now just finished Grade 3 and pretty well bilingual...and on top of that her english is still super good too! I feel so sad because my 2 sons coming up behind her may not have that same opportunity! I can only wish that I had that opportunity at that age....if I had than maybe I would be bilingual now! How dare they declare us a bilingual province.....make it difficult for us english speaking people to get work here....and then have the nerve to take early FI away!!! Yeah.....that really makes a lot of sense!!

I wanted to get my 2 cents in because I know you will hear from many who think differently than I do. I think Kelly Lamrock is on the right track and has taken a giant step toward having a bilingual province.

I have had 2 children go through core French and one through Intensive French as part of the pilot project. Intensive French is an amazing program and I think Parents for French(should call themselves Parents for French Immersion) and other lobby groups would not be so upset about Intensive French if they understood it. I believe it is superior to Immersion in one way,that is, the children spend their time learning a language and not how to do math or science in French. They come out of the Intensive French with a totally different attitude toward French and are more relaxed about learning it.

There is no doubt that early immersion is a great opportunity but unfortunately it is working for a very small percentage. We don't have the option of early immersion in our area. The old system has produced a two tier system with the core system having (in general) a poor attitude toward the French language. I believe all children should have an excellent French program and not just the 20 percent in early immersion.

One request, let's improve the Intensive French Program so that soon we have one excellent system in NB. That's my dream! One set of resources and one well run system offered to all students regardless of region location or size.
Kelly Lamrock has my vote and my respect for making a hard decision last spring. I hope the energetic and very vocal early immersion parents don't ruin it for the rest of the kids who would benefit from Intensive French and the demise of streaming and a two tier education system.

I would like to say that it is time that our government does make changes to our early French immersion system. Many times I have attended meetings with our department of education officials, and have heard how the system was not working well for all the children. However, no one wanted to tackle this problem. Well done Minister Lamrock and Premier Graham for finally taking up this issue. Thank you for beginning the process to make a difference.

I have had one child in late immersion (grade six) and two children in an advanced program who received education in French at a later age. All of them are able to speak and write French well.

One suggested change would be to ensure that children still receive French instruction (3 classes per week at least) while they begin the early years in education.

I look forward to hearing the results of this consultation and hope that we will be moving forward to a new system. Good luck with this process.

I am writing to give my full support to the changes to french second langauge instruction. I feel the changes are much needed and am pleased with the quick manner you are implementing them. Please do not give up on your plan.

First of all, I commend Mr. Lamrock for taking action rather than doing more research, analysis and report writing! However, if I were to suggest one thing that might have the greatest impact on student achievement, it would be to change the time of school operation in Middle and High Schools. There is much brain based research to support a decision to begin daily classes at this level later in the day and run until the evening (ie 12 - 7pm). As the mother of 3 teens (all of whom are in the Early Immersion program) I know that they need sleep during this time in their life when they are undergoing so many physical changes. I really believe that this would have a great impact on their learning.

As a Resource Teacher in an Elementary school where Early French Immersion has been available, I have been appauled by the lack of Resource Support for these students. The best I could offer was when they started English instruction in Grade 4, I could work with them to improve their literacy skills in English. This was not enough! Many of them had literacy issues in French also, which of course spilled over to other subjects. I began doing more consultation with teachers in the early years and was pleased when French Literacy Mentors began. We also began screening kids at the end of grade 3 for English Reading Fluency and offered appropriate books for weaker students to borrow over the summer. This helped some, but there continued to be a few students who had major language based issues (in English) which impacted their language aquistion in french. Many of these kids ended up with challenging behaviors, as they were frustrated with their own lack of progress and their peers success. Many of these struggling readers utilize strategies that involve context more so than phonetics or sight word building. In a second language they are at a loss to use context, when they struggle understanding much of what is said in English! More Resource Support in French won't fix this issue. An honest approach at the Kindergarten level when parents are considering early immersion would be helpful. Most of these kids showed signs of difficulty that could have been discussed with their parents as indicators of a Language Based Learning Disability. It's not an easy road for them when they change to English, but at least they are working in their first language, they have Resource support available, they are only working in 1 language and their parents are more likely to be able to help them. Overall, I feel the French immersion program has been successful, but like the English program it has room for improvement.

With regards to the Core French Program, I think it is a great waste of time! I think the Intensive French option at grade 5 is much more effective for most students. Even my students who struggle might experience success in this program that emphasizes oral communication more than print. However, like everything there are students who really would be best served elsewhere and therefore we need to have options available that can be documented in their SEP.

As for the English program we definitely have a lot of students with behavioral and academic challenges!! We are thankful for the classroom composition grants, as we were successful in getting a third grade 4 teacher. This changed 2 classes of 30 students each with a student in a wheelchair and 5 - 8 students on accommodated SEP's, to 3 classes of 20 students with space in their classroom and teachers who could actually teach, rather than just manage behavior and "cope"! Although previous governments have committed to lowering the class size 1 student per year, it really is too slow!! Current, best teaching practices can be managed when classes have 20 students in them! When teachers feel overwhelmed by the number of students, their demanding needs and behaviors, curriculum changes etc, then implementing more effective teaching methods is just something else to be overwhelmed by and therefore put off for another time!

Finally, I do believe that more Physical Education is very important for developing healthy, responsible individuals in our society! We have to do something, as our Health Care system is draining our other systems! The rate of obesity and related health concerns is outrageous!

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and look forward to hearing the decision of the government for Sept 2008.

I am in full support of the new approaches that Minister Lamrock is attempting to bring forth. I have read too many poorly written emails, comments and insults towards the minister and his Government to not come to the realization that the English language needs to be focused on first! Learning and mastering the basics is an absolute necessity - there are far too many young people leaving School without basic spelling and grammer skills.

Please note that I submitted the following comment a full week ago (19 June) and received a reply acknowledging receipt of it. As far as I can seem it has yet to be posted. Hence, I am resubmitting it in the hope that you will post it this time.

Starting with the premise that we want to promote an inclusive system that offers all children a quality education and offers the best opportunity to learn French, please consider the following points:

- Streaming under a late immersion only system is likely to be worse than it currently is. We see that in Croll and Lee data, in that differences among the groups in achievement levels only become large after LFI students move aware from the core group.

- The Ottawa-Carlton school board recently eliminated Late French Immersion, opting to keep EFI and expand a middle immersion option. They noted that early entrance into the program (those in EFI) was not particularly related to academic ability, but that only the strongest students entered late immersion. They also found that expansion of the middle immersion option (while still retainging early immersion) would make the system less elitist. The Minister should consider this model carefully. In Ottawa, there is also a high participation in immersion, so the situation may be very applicable. It would allow those with a desire to have their children start French early to continue with EFI, and would give those who want their children to learn in English for a few years first the option of a program that is less elitist than the proposed single immersion entry point in grade 6.

- There has been a lot of discussion of unequal class size with respect to immersion and core classrooms. However, relying on anecdotes is a dangerous approach, because you don't get the full story. Using data for 2007-08 available on the Department of Education website, I have calculated average class size, province-wide, for each program during each elementary grade. Following are the results:
Grade 1 - EFI = 17.7, core = 17.4
Grade 2 - EFI = 18.4, core = 17.9
Grade 3 - EFI = 20.0, core = 21.5
Grade 4 - EFI = 22.0, core = 22.8
Grade 5 - EFI = 21.1, core = 22.6
Total summed across all classes and grades: EFI = 19.6, core = 20.3; a difference of less than one student.
Clearly, there will always be situations where there are very large core classes, and very large EFI classes (e.g. my son's grade 3 EFI class was the largest in the school - larger than any core class). However, when anecdotes are used as a sole basis for decision making, without looking at actual data, problems can arise. I urge the minister to consider this and recognize that the class size argument anecdotally presented to date is simply not valid.
- Bottom line - I strongly support retaining EFI and making it more inclusive. I will post comments on ways to promote inclusion in the future.