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.

French immersion has unfortunately become the lightning rod of our education system due to the radical change that has been proposed. Whether the proposed change is for the better or worse, I cannot guess....only time will tell.

That being said, I think the province has to step back and look at the bigger picture. We continue to score below national standards in english, french and immersion. This is not just a french immersion issue.

What the government needs to do is to decide, once-and-for-all, whether it believes in standardized testing - which means adjusting our curriculum province-wide to better meet the objectives of the standardized testing - or whether it wants to control the curriculum of NB students.

From talking to a number of teachers, many are not believers in the standardized testing -- they say it does not conform with our curriculum putting our kids at a disadvantage. Another comment I have heard is that a number of questions are intended to trick students rather than test the knowledge.

If we are indeed supportive of standardized testing, we need to amend our curriculum province-wide to better conform to what the testing is focused on. If we want to control the curriculum taught to our children, then we have to make that clear as well.

My only other comment is that having two children in early immersion (grades 2 and 5), I feel it is critical that government ensure that adequate resources - not only in classroom but in terms of support - remain in place, to ensure these children continue to receive a high standard of education through until their completion. That is perhaps the most common fear that I have heard mentioned in talking to parents with children currently in the system - that because of the proposed changes the supports will no longer be in place.

I am extremely concerned with Minister Lamrock's plan to improve bilingualism in NB by eliminating EFI and to delay any introduction of French until grade 5.

As a grade one French Immersion teacher, I strongly believe EFI is the best option available to produce a high-level of French proficiency required to become bilingual. Everything I learned and read have pointed to the same thing ... the earlier the exposure to a second language the better the linguistic outcomes. Many education experts have stated that EFI is the best choice available in learning a second language.

The government must take the time to review the FSL system properly. We have to ensure that the changes made are the correct ones based on the best available information.

My recommendation is to maintain and fully support the EFI program in NB.
-a full-time Literacy Support teacher in each school
-French Speaking Resource & Methods teachers
-resources have to be provided to make EFI more inclusive

I remain hopeful that those much needed changes are done with the research in mind before we give up on a very successful program. Given that part of the goal of the minister's plan is to improve bilingualism in NB, why not commit to retaining EFI and making is more inclusive.
Let's celebrate the existence of two languages in NB.

There appear to the three reasons given for canceling EFI
1. We need to increase the number of bilingual graduates from NB schools
2. EFI causes "streaming" which has bad effects.
3. We need to increase the "literacy" of the NB population

With respect to 1, it is well accepted by all that EFI is the most successful program. The only reason to cancel it would be if doing so freed up resources that could be used in other programs. However, this is not true. Cancelling EFI does not free up any resources.

With respect to 2, this "problem" is well known and well researched. It is notable that nowhere but NB was the decision to combat this problem by cancelling EFI reached (and even in NB report after report did not recommend this. It took the attempted burying of one report, a fraudulent process, and a laughably incompetent report to reach this conclusion). It is also notable that the streaming problems are known to be more extreme for LFI, a program that has not been cancelled.

The root of the problem is the "EFI is for smart kids without problems" attitude. Unfortunately, rather than combating this attitude the education system has exacerbated it, e.g. by assigning all extra resources to the non-EFI classes. EFI is a valuable program for all children. To deny a child access by not providing the needed support borders on the criminal. The Minister's protestations that such support cannot be provided are not credible, as exactly this is done in nearby jurisdictions.

It would also be nice to have some actual figures on which to base the policy. Anecdotal evidence is dangerous (e.g. everyone knows that EFI classes are smaller than non-EFI classes. A glance at the Departments figures shows this is false). The only hard data we have on the placement of special needs children comes from the entirely discredited Croll/Lee report. This data and a dollar will not buy you a cup of coffee.

With respect to 3, there is no evidence that cancelling EFI will improve literacy, and lots of evidence that it won't. The Minister seems to be relying on a fragmentary and speculative analysis by the anything but independent Doug Willms. However this analysis makes predictions (e.g. that there should be a difference in developmental scores between EFI and non-EFI classes) that are contrary to fact.

Here, even the "problem" is mostly illusionary. The high illiteracy rate in NB (by some measures) is due to the demographics of the province. No change to the school system can change the illiteracy rates of the rural elderly! Within the school system, illiteracy rates are comparable to those in other provinces, and better than some. Great weight seems to be placed on the "PISA" results and the fact that NB scores are lower than those of some other provinces. This ignores the fact that the testing methods are not uniform across the country and the basic message that all provinces in Canada have high literacy scores.

Unfortunately, all of the above has been pointed out to the Minister in the past, and has been pointedly ignored. I have no faith that the Minister has any intention of giving any consideration to views that do not accord 100% with his own in this latest farcical "consultation".

I have to comment on the people who are saying let the parents make the choice. I am a parent and can't choose EFI because it is not available in our area. I want to see ALL NB children have a quality french education and not just those who have access to EFI.

My other comment is that I think Kelly Lamrock should educate parents about the Intensive french program. We have been part of the pilot project and it is an amazing program. I hear comments from Immersion parents saying... we want our children to speak french... we moved to NB so our children would learn french... etc and the thing is this program can do that. It may even be better than immersion!

Please try and educate the public about this wonderful program. I think if people knew how it worked, it would help alleviate fears and apprehension.

Something has to change and I believe Kelly Lamrock is on the right track.

A lot of complaints, not many suggestions for a Minister of Education to go on; here is mine:
Eliminate EFI and the proposed core french program. Extend the current english program to all grade levels. Spend time & money on making more french language intensive programs available for post high school graduates. That way those that require french language training by their employer, or feel they need it to obtain employment, can get ready access to it. I want my children to get a solid education in the basics first & foremost. It's a violation of my rights to not make a core english program available for my children.

I am very interested in this matter as my daughter will start kindergarden next year. I will try to be very short: children are more than capable to learn a foreign language when they are younger and giving the fact that we live in Canada, NB, where without French you are denied to work and have a good career in some areas, I don't want my daughter to be denied an opportunity which shouldn't even be a matter of discussion. We want to raise people with a large view and knowledge of the world, don't we? and we are a bilingual province and country, aren't we?
I have read all the materials and I am sorry to say, but I fail to see why French immersion had become a problem. Seems to me that the whole system needs rethinking and focusing on French is just a way to hide the real problem - we need a better way to transfer the knowledge to our children (maybe more knowledge and make them think is not a bad idea)...
Anyway, I WANT MY DAUGHTER TO HAVE the CHANCE to learn French as young as possible! As for how good will she do at the rest, I will do my part in helping her.

While I understand Mr. Lamrock's wish to eliminate streaming in our schools by eliminating early French Immersion, I fear that he's a bit misguided. Streaming happens in middle schools as much as, if not more than, in elementary schools.

I feel that the solution to the streaming problem lies not with the French Immersion program but with the lack of special education programs for high-need children who due to behavioral, physical or intellectual problems have been streamed into the main stream classroom with the rest of the children who have chosen not to take French Immersion for whatever reason. This creates a system where the non-Immersion students are faced with coping daily with all of the special needs students in their classrooms. If some sort of "special education" program were introduced to lessen the impact that these children have on the others in the classroom it would greatly impact their capacity to learn effectively. I know it is not politically correct to propose removing these children from the mainstream classroom but the fact remains that they do have greater needs for individual attention than the average student and one teacher cannot provide the attention needed while stimulating the other children in the classroom to learn, even with the help of teacher's aides. I feel this would be of benefit to all involved.

Thank you for providing a forum to express my concerns

Mr. Kelly Lamrock
Minister of Education
Government of New Brunswick

In response to your consultation on the subject of French immersion:

I am very disappointed in your proposal to eliminate all French instruction in Anglophone schools prior to Grade 5. This will have the effect of diminishing bilingualism among young Anglophones in the future, and contribute to the decrease of understanding among the two language groups. If there has been relative linguistic peace between the two communities in the last few years, I believe that it is in large part because many young people have had the opportunity to acquire a second language.

You have stated in the media and on your website that your objective is to have a minimum of 70% of our Anglophone high school graduates proficient in speaking French. This sounds commendable but it is not all clear that your proposal would move towards this objective, since the introduction to French will be postponed to Grade 5 for all Anglophone students. Also it appears that the total number of hours devoted to French during Grades 1-12 will be reduced for all students. In fact this last point is not clear; it would be useful to provide the public with a clear statement of the total number of hours over 12 years in each existing and proposed program: core French now, early and late immersion French now, proposed programs with and without late immersion.

As for possible alternatives, I believe that the proposal of Professor Joseph Dicks of UNB (see www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/06/20/nb-french.html) would be an improvement which addresses many of the points you have made in the media. Early immersion from Grade 1 or even kindergarten, and resources to provide help for students in difficulty and therefore address the problem of high abandonment rates, as well as an improved core program starting in Grade 1 for students who choose not to enter the immersion programme.

In a CBC interview I heard you say that the main barrier to improving French instruction is the difficulty of finding suitable teachers who are as rare as "eight-feet purple people". I found this comment very strange, since I have taught at the Universit� de Moncton which has many francophone B.Ed. graduates who could teach in immersion programs. Perhaps the qualifications for immersion teachers are being defined too narrowly.

An improved core program starting in Grade 1 would also be useful. I learned French as an Anglophone in Montr�al starting in Grade 2 before immersion programs existed, in what would now be considered an enriched core program, and my French has been sufficient to teach at the Universit� de Moncton for 35 years. An immersion program would probably have given me a better accent however.

Thank you for your time. I do hope that this last-minute consultation represents a real attempt to improve French instruction in our schools, and has not been undertaken solely to satisfy the court judgment.

I have three children in your school district.
A boy in grade 11, a boy in grade 6, and a girl in grade 3.
I'll start with my daughter for she is most effected by your decision to eliminate the early French language program.
Since she's going into grade 3 I did'nt think she would be effected, however she is.
Our daughter (here out reffered to as child Y) is ADD and like many left handed ADD November babies she has a few extra hurtles to jump.
Child Y is a slow reader. Like Devincci, she reads and writes backwards (mirror writing/reading).
Child Y also has a speach problem for which she has had a speach therapist working with her since she was a baby.
For each of her weakness she has a strength, she is a gifted artist and math student.
Child Y is in French but ever year I'm persuaded into taking her out and every year the presure is more and more.
The reasons I chose to put child Y in French in grade 1 are:
- the classes are usely smaller
- they have much fewer children with special needs,(allowing for more attention to be given to the few and less distractions for the ADD child)
- no one really notices she has a speach issue when they are all learning a new language.
- what better way for her to work on her speach then to spend the day working on sounds.
- and the French, its important for everyone to learn a second language.
Your decison effects child Y in that she was to be put into a split grade 2/3 in sept, yet because of the change I was told a lot of the parents are switching their children to English now leaving child Y in a full grade 3 class. I was also told due to the change even less resources will be avaiable to the French classes in the comeing year.
Our oldest child (child Z) is ADD.
Child Z strugles with change/transition. He had a complete mental break down going from middle to High school the transiton was to much for him due to the school being ill prepared for him and he being ill prepared for the change.
Child Z has a few other strugles that need to be accomadated but not French, yet every year I'm asked if I want to switch him to English. Finally in grade 9 they told us he could not return to school unless I sign papers to have him switched to english.
The reasons I chose to put child Z in French in grade 1 are:
- less change from year to year the French teachers often know all the French students and spend time with every grade with activies, the same group of students not much change.
- the classes are usely smaller
- they have much fewer children with special needs,(allowing for more attention to be given to the few and less distractions for the ADD child)
- and the French, its important for everyone to learn a second language.
Our middle febuary child is NOT ADD in fact he is the only one of the five of us in our family that is not ADD.
Child X has strugled with speach and did require a speach therapist but very quickly he caught on.
Child X strugles with orginization and getting home work done in a house full of ADD people is a challenge.
Child X is a very intellegent child who was doing grade 5 fractions in kindergarden due to boredom.
The reasons I chose to put child X in French in grade 1 are:
- The challenge of learning a new language.
- working on sounds helped him with his speach and pronounciation.
- The small classes allowed the teachers time to work on his organization skills one on one something we could never do. He has always been able to do his homework and projects during class time.
- and the French, its important for everyone to learn a second language.

With the new system being proposed the only one of children that would learn a second language would be child X.
The trauma of switching languages in grade 5 would have destroyed child Z and cause lots of problems for the school. In grade six he would out right refuse to go into French and teachers would discourage it stongly.
Child Y could handle the change but she would be so lost in the language change that the stress would cause her brain to shut down so all she heard would be "Wan Wan Wan" and she would learn nothing what so ever.
Being that I too am ADD I hope you recognize how much time and effort went into writing this so please do not disregard us we are important too.

As a primary school teacher I beleive that the removal of EFI is best for ALL children. This is not to say that the EFI program was terrible and hinders learning, but having smaller class sizes with better compsition improves the learning enviroment for everyone. If we truly believe the quality learning agenda we have to make changes to ensure that the enviroment that children learn in is optimal. I also think that the decoding skills and reading strategies that are taught in the K-2 block in English will easily transfer to French in grade 5 French Intensive. I commend Mr. Lammrock for making change. No one likes the process but if you want to be among the great provinces in Canada we need to do something different. What we are doing now is leaving us in the bottom of the provincial rankings.
Finally as a young teacher, I find this uproar very disruptive to everyday life. WE were awarded contracts that were retracted because of this courtroom suggestion. If you want to keep New Brunswick's young and bright teacher you have to set a tone for that. People are going to leave to find job security and reliability.

I just want to take this opportunity to let you know I can't believe what you are doing here. My daughter is a graduate of Riverview High , 2005 and she took the early French and it was fantastic. She has used her French while taking dance, while working. Not to mention that her English is excellent. She just finished her first year of university with five A- so taking early immersion didn't hurt her English.
I have spoken through the years with many students who have taken French and without hesitation the outstanding best time to take French is as early as possible before they become too shy to speak out.
I don't know where this silly plan came from but it is without doublt the worst thing you could do.
I am so tired with politions playing with the education system not with the childrens best interests in mind but with money and popularity the main consideration. I am so thankful my daughter was able to do early immersion. I know this will affect my vote in the next election.

This is too big and important an issue to be decided in such a limited amount of time. I urge the Government to follow the recommendations from the NB Ombudsman's recent Report into the Minister of Education's decision to modify the French Second Language Curriculum.

I want my children to have the best possible academic opportunity here in NB, including an option for EARLY French immersion, which other provinces across Canada continue to offer. My position has nothing to do with elitism. To the contrary, it reflects my deep personal concern for the future of my family, all young NB families, and the province as a whole.

As a graduate of the early french immersion program, I feel it offered me the best opportunity to learn the language. I also know that compared to my friends (who were in the core program) and my siblings (who were in the late immersion program), I have a far better command of the language than they do. This indicates to me that the earlier the enrollment, the better success rate.

The other thing that will help the Immersion program is a change in attitude. I feel very blessed to have had the opportunity to learn a second language. However, many parents seem more intent on exercising their rights than on providing their children with every opportunity offered by the province. Change the attitude, we'll see more enrollment and more children enjoying the benefits of a second language.

Let me start by saying Good Job. Finally someone is ready to stand up for our children. I have 4 children that have gone or are in Early French Immersion and it works for a minority of children. I would love to see a solid English program in Kindergarden to grade 4 or 5, everyone starting on the same scale. Then an intensive French program but also a solid English program too. At that point you will know who can handle the French program and who will not. (no guessing game). Then we need to work on the French program in the High Schools (many children drop the program because they do not offer choices of courses in French). We then need to address the high drop out rate along with sports programs and beef up the TRADES. We need to give our children the incentive to go and finish school and make it appealing and challenging for All our children not just those with high academic levels.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,
You must be pleased to see that so far over 500 comments have been posted in response to your controversial decision to scrap one of the few (if not the only) truly successful program in the NB anglophone education system.
Let me sum up your rationale for your proposed "universal" plan: 1. Core French produces poor FSL results.
2. Intensive French works, at least in the preliminary pilot setting, to boost core French results to a "basic" level.
3: EFI produces the best FSL results but demands skilled bilingual teachers and resources to be truly inclusive.

Your solution: Free up teachers and resources from the EFI program to pour into the Intensive French program by scrapping EFI and Core French. Oh, and throw in late immersion since we are a bilingual province, knowing full well that by that time only a few students will go that route, thus requiring fewer resources compared to EFI (French programming declines even sharper in high school).

Result: Mediocre "one size fits all" education with the following flaws: 1. It's highly experimental (IF was never meant to be "stand-alone" without the preceding Core French education)!
2. Mandatory nature will result in increased behaviour problems and lower overall achievement levels (you can't force kids to learn French, you have to create an environment conducive to learning)!
3. Late immersion produces academic streaming! Isn't streaming what you want to avoid?
4. NO French Second Language competency (even the select few that make it into late Immersion will graduate with "minimally cohesive utterances" in French!

Mr. Lamrock, I admire your eagerness to fix the education system. Unfortunately, there is no "quick fix" for a chronically under-funded system.

My "common sense" proposal is as follows:
1. Re-instate EFI and make it more inclusive by providing the necessary resources. (There ARE enough qualified teachers! Keep them in NB! What's lacking is long-term employment contracts, competitive salary and benefit packages.)
2. Enhance the Core French/ English program by focussing on the basics (reading, math, grammar, spelling) - is that too much to ask? Let the "enrichment" happen outside of school!
3. Enhance early literacy and numeracy by offering more instruction time (e.g. a longer school year by reducing the Summer break to 6 weeks like most European countries).
4. Eliminate behavior problems and teacher burn-out by smaller class sizes and individualized student-adequate learning in an inclusive environment, thus eliminating the "wasted time syndrome".
5. Enforce grading requirements (social grading is detrimental to academic and personal development).

To those who say "we can never afford this", let me respond: You're investing into the future of our children and the long-term prosperity of our province/country - the single most important investment you can make!

Mr. Lamrock, stop wasting taxpayer's money with useless biased reports, glossy propaganda pamphlets and ad campaigns. Instead, invest into the future of our children NOW! Please descend from your political throne and listen to the experts with hands-on experience in the education field, like Joe Dicks!

Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
NB parent and tax payer

As I am reviewing the reports, articles and letters that pertain to the issue of the elimination of EFI, I can't help but feel as if the decision was made long before any of these studies or reports were done. "ok guys, we are going to do this, and now we need some reports to back it up...go to it". Although the public now has an opportunity to discuss the issue that was forced upon the school system earlier this year, there remains an air around the issue that suggests, as I said, that the decision has already been made. "Go ahead and make your arguments, plead your cases, get down on your knees and beg for a continuation of EFI". The elimination of the EFI and core french programs in NB will simply be reannounced on August 5, 2008.

I hope I am wrong.

What I find most madening about this issue, is the apparent dictatorship imposed by the minister. The reports really do not make any sense....what monumental decision, such as this, is based on the results of a study of a single test group? Most data was based on a single test group, the class of 2005.
The article discussing inclusion in education, makes the point that each child should be dealt with based on his or her individual needs. It is a known fact that everyone, children and adults alike, learn in different ways. I have seen 1st hand in my children's classrooms, this belief and responses to it in action. I cannot fathom what would posess our government to take away an educational option. If anything, more options should be presented in the early years, as is being presented in the high school years. If there is a problem with the overall outcome of the EFI program, as is suggested by the graduates of 2005, than the program needs to be supported and improved, not eliminated. It has been stated that children, on average, learn best when they are young. That fact has not changed, what has changed is that a greater range of academic ability is being introduced to french in grade one, than in it's early years when EFI could have been considered "for the smart kids". This is a good thing, but the program is lagging behind in it's support measures for children with difficulties in EFI. These same children may have similar difficulties in the english system. It is one thing to say that in grade 2, EFI students are reading at a lower level than mainstream kids, but one must consider that most schools have a least one english literacy teacher who works with children struggling with their reading. There are no such teachers/support workers in french, at least not in our district. This coupled with the fact that children are essentially learning 2 languages (french at school, while parents try to keep up english reading at home). It is perceived as being a problem with EFI in gerneral, when in fact I believe it is a lack of support. The kind of support that is standard in the english program. Yes, more support would mean more costs, but what is the eductaion of our future leaders and voters worth, in this bilingual province of ours?
I believe the answer is options. The more options the better.

Mr. Lamrock, your contraversial plan has many parents with children in the French Immersion Program opting to send there children to the French School System.
These are students from various grade levels, and is now possible since it is no longer a requirement for a student to have a parent who is French.
I am surprised there is not more concern from parents in the French School System.

In March when the decision to eliminate French Second Language Training (FSL) before Gr. 5 was made I believed that it didn't effect my children or me. My oldest was already in EFI and doing very well and because it seemed likely that my youngest, who enters Kindergarten this year, will struggle with the basics, I had already decided that EFI would not be the best option for her. I was distressed that she would have no FSL before Gr. 5 but otherwise unconcerned.

As the ensuing debate intensified I soon found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend a program that I believed in against accusations that it was harming children like my youngest. Being placed in this position, I began to follow the discussion much more closely than I otherwise would have. I felt the need to become better informed about the issues, to separate the facts from the rhetoric. After reading several reports, participating in many discussions and doing considerable research, I believe I have a better understanding of the issues facing the education system than I did a few months ago.

As indicated in the FSL Discussion Paper it seems that the reforms to FSL are meant to address the issue of streaming. From the various opinions I've encountered it seems that streaming is a problem but it is caused not by the existence of EFI but rather, from the way people interact with EFI. After learning that the definition of streaming was "a method of tracking a group of students to provide appropriate resources" it occurs to me that by looking at streaming in this more positive light, we could improve the success rate for both Immersion and Core.

Having a child in EFI has made me aware that those children have little access to specialized resource help. With this in mind, and having a limited ability to speak/read in French, I had decided to stream my youngest into the Core Program to ensure she would have access to the resources she needs to succeed. If those specialized resources were available in Immersion, more students, like my youngest, could access the program and remain there when they began to experience difficulty. It is my belief that this would greatly reduce the perception that EFI 'causes' streaming.

At the onset of this consultation process the Minister indicated that he wanted solutions not testimonials. I would prefer that we task experts in this field with the job of improving our system but I can offer the following suggestions from my position of a parent prepared to 'self stream' my youngest.

Kindergarten-A bilingual kindergarten would expose every child to a second language in a play based (low risk) environment. If students enjoy exploring a second language at this age their parents might be more comfortable choosing an immersion option for them.

Grade 1 & 2(two options)
A) Maintain Early Immersion and add the necessary resources to make it work for more students. If these resources truly do not exist, an intermediate plan might involve parent volunteers to fill the gap until training can be completed.

B) Language/ Immersion Readiness could replace the existing Core program and serve, as an option for those parents who would like immersion but believe their children will benefit from a good grounding in English. A combination of "Intensive English" and an enhanced Core French program similar to Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM).

Grade 3-8 (three options)
A ) Early Immersion continues
B) Middle Immersion (replaces LFI) for those still desiring immersion-ensure that resources are provided for any exceptionalities identified during language readiness.
C) Enhanced Core/Intensive French--Students in this stream would continue with "Intensive English" and AIM and would be given the option of one semester of Intensive French at the most appropriate grade level. Ideally, there would be an opportunity for Core Students to cross over to the MFI "stream" at some point (maybe after IF if it's possible to offer IF early enough to allow those students to catch their MFI peers.)

Grade 9-12
Immersion (EFI/MFI)--move proficiency exam to Gr. 10 and offer a FSL upgrade class for those failing to meet their fluency requirement. Permit students to take university prep courses in desired language without penalty.
Enhanced Core-Implement proficiency testing in Gr. 9 offer a "FSL Upgrade Program" in Gr 10-12 for those students who need to raise their level of fluency.

Clearly, given my lack of professional experience in this area, some of these suggestions may not be practical, in that case I would fully support either the 'Alternate Plan for FSL in New Brunswick' by Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson or the Ottawa Carleton School Board model.

I believe that, given enough time, a creative curriculum designer could develop an inclusive program that not only improved FSL outcomes but also allowed for more enrichment and Physical activity opportunities. To do this properly we need to involve the experts and allow them ample time to do the job.

Recently I have heard the Minister comment that he did not want to put one more years worth of students on a train to nowhere. I offer that it will be much easier to get those students off that train in a years time, when we have a properly functioning system, than it would be to get a group of students back on the train after they've missed their stop.

In conclusion, I feel the need to comment on the level of divisiveness that this debate has created in the Province. Personally, I find it equally offensive when Core classrooms are compared to Ghettos and EFI students are accused of being elite.

Mr. Lamrock

In my opinion, your decision to eliminate EFI is very short-sighted. Lowering expectation in order to improve test scores may work for the short term, however, in 12 years, do you really want your legacy to be that you were the minister who was responsible for opening the floodgates for the mass exodus of New Brunswickers who must go elsewhere for employment, because they do not have the language skills to work in the province in which they were educated? We have already witnessed a similar occurrence following the elimination of training in the "trades" several years ago.

Delaying french language training until grade 5 will not work. Instead, start the learning process in kindergarten, when children are less self-conscience. Parents would then be better equipped to make a decision as to whether or not EFI was appropriate for their child. Offer more options for french language training in high school, so that students can fulfill their university requirements and continue to learn a second language. Extend the school day for middle and high school students, rather then trying to cram more into such short day. Finally, consult with your teachers. They are the experts in what works!

I hope that you will seriously consider these options.

Notre fils est un francophone du Qu�bec qui est mari� � une femme native du Nouveau-Brunswick et ils demeurent � Sussex. Nous, les grand-parents paternels sommes francophones et nous avons une grande chance que notre bru parle fran�ais et anglais. Ils ont un fils de 2 ans. Cet enfant parlera anglais, et ira � l'�cole en anglais. M�me si le p�re parle fran�ais � la maison, ces �tudes se feront en anglais ainsi que la conversation r�guli�re. Vous imaginez notre peine, car nous ne pourrons pas communiquer avec notre petit-fils puisque son fran�ais sera trop restreint. Les enfants ont la capacit� d'apprendre rapidement quand ils sont jeunes. Pourquoi repousser cet apprentissage � plus tard. Nous au Qu�bec avons commencer � apprendre l'anglais � l'�cole en 5e ann�e, et je puis vous dire que je suis incapable de suivre une conversation et encore moins de parler anglais.
Merci de l'attention que vous porterez � cette opinion en esp�rant que le fran�ais soit pr�sent dans la vie quotidienne.

I am a student at the Woodstock Middle School. I started French in grade 1. When I herd that the early french immersion will be taken away because of the number of children dropping out later in the school years, I was shoked! I thought people would injoy learning a completaly new language, but I guess I was wrong. I think it's the student's and parent's choice to drop out of French Immersion. But there are parents that still want their kids to learn at a young age. At Woodstock Centenial Elementary School, for nedt year, there is only about 11 kids signed up for grade 1 French Immersion. I do realise why people want to take French Immersion out of choice until grade 5. But, some people want to keep it because their children may learn easier at a younger age. Thank you for your time.

EFI produces better french speakers, costs less on a per studen basis and has essentially the same attrition rate as LFI. The logical choice is to retain EFI. Core French needs to be fixed. However, there is no justification to eliminate EFI. Immersion is only slightly more expensive than core and EFI costs less per capita. As a bilingual province, this is the investment we must make not eliminate. The current proposal does not eliminate streaming only delays it from my perspective. The Minister should listen to the Ombudsman report to allow for a non-partisan and consultative approach. A legislative committee with a clear mandate should also be considered. In a nutshell, abise by the guidelines set out by the Provinces Advisor on Public Engagement. It is the right thing to do.

Having moved here from Montreal and seeing the effects on the lack of choice from Bill 101, I am concerned that the right to choose offical languages, which new Brunswick is the only province to provide, flies in the face of guaranteed charter rights. My child has special needs and is on an IEP and participates in the AIMs French class presently. He loves school and my fear is that 5 months of only French instrction will set him back. I would like more than an open house day from the school district, how about an open forum where the Minister and Premier appear to answer questions at various dates throughtout the districts. This would certainly be a more democratic way to address concerns. If the Minister feels so strongly that this is the right course of action than he should have no trouble facing parents directly.
We also have to stop using the term bilingual, without having the same language at home and without use and knowledge of idiomatic expressions than this ability would be called functional and that is an attainable goal. In a democratic society with a well written Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it wouuld seem that removing chioce is anti-democratic.

I would like the early french immersion program to stay and have things put in place to improve it. I have watched my step-son go threw the program and think it is great. My daughter is now getting ready to enter it. I just hope it is still avaiable for her. I believe it helps children, gives them an asset in life. Any jobs that you see today, french is an asset, don't take this away from our children. I have 2 other children as well and would love for all of them to be able to speak french.

I don't feel that this is for everyone but that is up to the parents not Mr. Lamrock to decide. I feel threw out this , one important thing has been forgotten that this decision should be may by parents, whether or not to put their child in the program. The government should help improve what we already have, no take away AN ASSET to our children. Thanks.

I would like to say that I don't agree with Mr. Lamrock, as to getting rid of the early immersion. I had a child going into grade 6 who has been in the early french immersion program and has done wonders with him. He was bored in Kindergarden and I was glad that he was able to take the French because it came so naturally to him and he loves it. He is no longer bored and keeps him interested. I have a daughter going into grade 1 this fall and I will be very upset that she will not be able to be put into this program. This will not be fair as my children are not allowed to get the same education.

This is a bilingual province why on earth would you take away the french as a second language just puzzles my mind. I don't feel that entering the french program at grade 6 is good enough. Having children entering at grade 1 is much more easier for them to learn the language and not have as many problems if they did at grade 6. There is also a different where a child entering grade 6 and one who has been threw the since grade 1 is going to come out with better french skills, just because of the early start in which children are considered "sponges" and can learn better.
The early french immersion SHOULD stay and Mr. Lamrock should start to put things in place to help the children if they are having problems. It is the same as resource, the english students had it why not had it for the french immersion students. The program should be improved rather than getting rid of it all together.
I would like my children to all have the same opportunities, just remember our children ARE our future and taking anything away from that is just plain wrong. The human race is all about improving ourselfs and improving everything in our lifes, so lets improve the early french immersion program. Thank you.

I am a retired teacher, administrator. I have 2 children who were educated in NB in the English system (one took Enriched French, the other core French.) The one that took only core French uses French on a regular basis in his work. Just as my son is successful (without the benefit of immersion),I will never dispute that there are children who took Immersion that achieved well. The problem is that we are not able to serve all the children, as well.
I have served on DEC in my district since I retired.
I commend Honorable Lamrock for trying to make our system better for ALL the children.
I believe that introducing Intensive French at the Grade 5 level will give early childhood educators the opportunity to do many things to enhance and "beef up" literacy and numeracy curriculum.