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.

Hello, Thank you for taking the time to reconsider the decision. I have two children, our son just finished grade 5 EFI, and our daughter is registered to enter in September. Our son is doing well in the program & is actually in Quebec this week staying with family friends who do not speak english. He is also attending a french hockey school in Quebec this summer. There is no way by daughter will be able enjoy such cultural experiences without learning how to speak french at an early age.

I understand the issues with streaming, but how will this be solved with more students entering late immersion? The problem will just be delayed until grade 6 instead of grade 1.

The largest problem is that the class sizes are much too large for one teacher to be able to provide what each child needs. My son does well in the program, but when he has a chance to have some extra help he does even better. The other problem is the books that are available for the age groups. My son has a very hard time finding books he is interested in at the school, but when I take him to Chapters or buy on the internet there are lots of choices. You need to have books that appeal to 10 year old boys if you want them to read. I realize that new books cost money, but if you want them to read they must be interested.

I had taken late immersion and found it very difficult to learn a new language plus having to deal with more difficult subjects. Being a teenager made it even more difficult.

Our daughter wants to learn french & we are telling her we don't know if she will be able to in grade one. We have told her she may have to wait until she is in grade 5, but she wants to learn now. She is so eager, we don't want to discourage her. What do you tell a 5 year old who wants to learn?

I submitted an earlier comment in which I raised questions about the statistics quoted by the Education Minister concerning the performance of New Brunswick students on standardized tests, such as PISA. A story in the Daily Gleaner a few weeks back reported that students in District 18 had the best test results and that this district also has a high rate of French immersion enrollment. This raises questions about the Minister's claim that EFI hurts student performance overall.

In my earlier post, I noted that the government should provide further statistics breaking down test results by district (as well as making adjustments for factors such as the greater emphasis on inclusion in New Brunswick schools compared to other provinces). As far as I know, this information is not readily available anywhere.

When attending one of the Open Houses, I asked one of the officials if I could obtain the 2006 PISA test results by district, which were sent to me a few days later. I also took numbers relating to FI enrollment levels in each district from a report available on the Department of Education Website, 'Summary Statistics: School Year 2006-7. The following is a brief summary of these figures.

Of the nine anglophone school districts, four have relatively high rates of FI enrollment: District 2, Moncton (39%); District 6, Rothesay (35%); District 15, Dalhousie (35%); and District 18, Fredericton (28%). The other five have relatively low levels: District 8, Saint John (20%); District 10, St. Stephen (13%); District 14, Woodstock (17%); District 16, Miramichi (15%); District 17, Oromocto (16%).

The PISA test results show that the districts with higher levels of FI enrollment tend to do better. (One important qualification: these numbers are taken from a graph, so they may be off by a couple of points as it is not possible to pull precise numbers off a graph. If this is the case, it would obviously be reasonable to ask that the Minister make precise figures available on the consultation website so that this debate can proceed with accurate and comprehensive information).

The average PISA score for the three subjects on which students are tested - math, science and reading - was 537 for District 18, the highest scoring district. For the other three districts with high FI enrollments, the average scores were as follows: District 2 Moncton, 521; District 6 Rothesay, 509; District 15 Dalhousie, 516.

For the districts with low FI enrollments, the PISA test results were as follows: District 8 Saint John, 505; District 10 St. Stephen, 521; District 14 Woodstock, 506; District 16 Miramichi, 491; District 17 Oromocto, 478.

What this means is that the top five districts on PISA testing include all four districts with high FI enrollments. The bottom four are all districts with low FI enrollments.

Someone might respond that you would need to take into account other factors affecting student performance in order to determine the effect of FI on academic results, and I would agree. Someone might also say you should look at results for FI students and core students within each district, to see how each group is doing in places with high and low FI enrollments. Again I would agree.

But I would also suggest that the onus is on the government to use the data it has at its disposal to carry out more in-depth analysis and to make it publicly available. What the basic numbers suggest is that the 'reasoning' the Minister has provided to date - that New Brunswick is near the bottom of the pack among Canadian provinces on PISA test results and EFI is clearly to blame - is obviously inadequate and not an acceptable basis for moving ahead with the elimination of a program greatly valued by many.

EFI is an important aspect and choice of the education system in NB. There are few, if any, supported arguments for the elimination of EFI or FSL in the elementary system. EFI is a proven successful program. AIM is proving to be an excellent enhancement to core French in K-5.

Anglophone children need to be given every available opportunity to become bilingual - not functionally bilingual, but truly bilingual, with the ability to continue their education in a Francophone setting or to obtain and retain employment requiring French language capabilities.

Not being an education expert, I really have no ability to tell you how to make our education system better. Quite frankly, my children have received excellent instruction from their teachers. I have no concerns with how and what they are being taught. I do have concerns that the March, 2008 proposed changes will cause our family to have less choice in education and to have lesser education period. I have grave reservations with the proposed lack of choice for all Anglophone families. Perhaps you need to look to the Districts which are out performing others to see how they differ in their approach and outcomes to determine what would be best to adopt for those Districts that struggle.

As a New Brunswicker proud of the province, the March, 2008 proposed education changes seem to be extremely polarized to other initiatives taken by the current government - sustainability, immigration, growth. I would like the changes to the NB education system to reflect not only the current needs of the province but to allow the building of a more prosperous province. Reducing the choices in the system is not conducive to doing this, particularly with attracting families to move to or to stay here.

In conclusion, it would be my hope to have EFI remain in the system.

Yes something has to be done about both French Immersion programs, in the NB education system, but I don't think the following is it: Croll & Lee Report Page 11 Recommendation #2a "that after grade 10, Students who have chosen to study through Late Immersion, will not be required to study their Science and Mathematics courses in French and that schools shall have the OPTION of offering Science and Mathematics courses for Late Immersion students in either French or English between grades 6 through 10."

Mr. Lammrock seems very concerned about streaming but the above recommendation makes me very concerned about have and have not schools. How can this be fair to the students, parents and future employers of NB? What is going to happen for example if a rural middle school which offers late french immersion can't get a bilingual Math or Science teacher, or can get only a grade 6 level teacher who will teach math in french and science will be taught in english due to the lack of availability of frech speaking teacher in that speciality. Then in grade 7 the opposite may happen. What happens at the High School level that these middle schools feed into? How are they going to be prepared for the different levels of french in which these students will be able to funcation regarding Mathematics & Science? The word OPTION seems very dagerous to me.

On a personal note both my children are in the Late French Immersion Program in NB. In Sept. of 07 my oldest started high school, and I was dumb-founded to find out that french language arts is only required for one period per day for one semester per grade level. From what I have been told by parents of other high school students it is the same for grades 10, 11, & 12. Based on the above reommendation (2a) students who stay in late immersion from grade 10 and up will not receive math and science in french. Seems to me that the higher the grade level the less french language instruction he or she is taught in.

Fix Immersion you bet, but fix the curriculum so that all French Immersion students parents and teachers know what is expected of them.

The problems with French second language and particularly those of immersion have been known for some time.Low participation rate and few students actuallly reaching the goal of the program have been well documented over the years.The issues around the disparity between French Immersion and core English classes also is well understood by those of us who have worked in the Elementary schools where French Immersion is taught. There are those who dispute this but my experience over many years teaching in the system tells me that all the issues raised are very real.
Compounding all the problems with class composition and high drop out rates, from Immmersion, is that of finding the level of teacher competency and language compentency in the same individual especially in rural area that do have immersion.At times language competency trumps teaching competency.
As a part time instructor at university, now that I am retired, from time to time in the past the question of immersion has come up.Some students who took immersion say it was a joke while others had a positive experience. Those who found it a joke mentioned the fact that some of their teachers did not speak the French language well at all. Most had not reached the minimum goal of oral proficiency.
Considering all this plus a number of other issues I support the Ministers ending of early French Immersion as a program. No other program that has produced such poor results and disparity would be still operating in this province.
If there is a compromise to be made perhaps it could be to lower the grade level to grade 3 where Intensive French would begin. If French Immersion is part of the fabric of our province as some have said is it not important that every child be given the opportunity to succeed in it. That certainly is not happening now.
I believe Early French Immersion is a program that has taken a great deal from many students to give to a very few.
I understand a definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing expecting to get different results. That is what I believe continuing with Early French Immersion ammounts to. Continued mediocre results and a major detriment to the system as a whole.

I am the product of EFI. I grew up in an English speaking lower middle class family. I had the great opportunity of having grade A teachers who taught me well which enabled me to grasp the French language. I studied French immersion until I graduated from high school and into my first year of university. I am still able to use the French I was taught in school from time to time when my job requires. Many of my classmates have gone on to be fluent in French as teachers, government workers and executive directors. These are but a few indications that EFI works.

My daughter will be entering Grade 3 in EFI. My youngest was to begin EFI as she is entering Grade 1 in September 2008. She will not have the same opportunity to learn French if EFI is scraped. This bothers me as she should have the same rights that are being offered to her older sister.

My suggestion is to provide children who are experiencing difficulty with resources. As it is, too often we see kids in high school who are not able to properly spell or read. We cannot blame that on EFI-we can blame that on a lack of funding to the schools. Resources, resources, resources. Let's not scrap EFI - let's fix it.

Je trouve que vous faites une tr�s grosse erreur en changeant le programme d'immersion. En 5i�me ann�e les jeunes seront beaucoup plus r�tissant a apprendre une langue seconde.

I wish to express my opinion of the elimination of early immersion in New Brunswick. I am against this change and hope that the government of New Brunswick reconsiders their decision to eliminate early immersion. I have two young children who are not in school yet, but I was hoping that they would be able to learn French in the early immersion setting. I think that we should look at how every other province in Canada operates their early immersion programs and perhaps learn from them. I certainly don't want to live in the only province in Canada that does not offer early immersion.
I don't think that anyone can argue the fact that younger children will learn a second language quicker and more easily than they will when they are older. Also as far as the issue of streaming goes, and the fact that not all children are capable or able to participate in early immersion, I just don't buy it. I feel that if the resources are there to support the children, that any parent who wishes for their child to be exposed to a second language at such a young age, should be able to. Let's face it, not all children are the same. They don't all learn the same. The system that you are proposing suggests that all children should be given the exact same education, I believe the government calls it leveling the playing field. But, not all children are at the same level. There should be choices for parents to make based on their child's abilities and the parent's preferences. A one size fits all, is not the solution.
I am opposed to the elimination of early immersion and I hope that the government of New Brunswick takes my comments to heart and reconsiders its decision.

I read pretty much everything that's been written about the new plan Mr. Lamrock wants to put in effect but what I don't see or read about is the right for the children or parents to choose. My son is terrified to go to school next year because he doesn't want to hear about learning in french. He finds it hard enough to follow and keep up in english that he not ready to learn a new language. I do agree something needs to be done about the numbers but can we do that without putting more stress on our children and also without loosing the right to make our own chose in what language our own children should be learning. I don't really oppose the new plan what I oppose is the minister telling me I don't have a choice or a voice in my child life. That I don't agree with because the last time I look I was my child parent and knew him or her better than anyone. I don't need the minister of education or anyone else to tell me what is best for hisor her future when it comes to education since I'm the one that been there since day one and know exactly how my child's learns.
Don't tell me a don't have a choice when it's comes to my children education that I will never support. I've brought up my children to believe that they can do anything and always have a choice now we are been told by Mr. Lamrock that we don't.
Finding a way to improve the french numbers without taking our choices away I will support 100%.

Premier Graham and Mr Kelly Lamrock

I strongly disagree with the Government's decision to eliminate Early French Immersion. I think the decision was done in haste based on flawed data and will have serious ramifications on the education of our children and the Province as a whole into the future.

The education system in the Province certainly has areas for improvement and I encourage the Province to build the best education system in Canada. As the Country's only bilingual Province, improving French second-language skills is essential - EFI is the best program for producing bilingual graduates. I am not in favour of "lowering the bar" for second-language education and we need to find solutions so that more students have access to achieve ADVANCED proficiency. Research and Language experts continue to demonstrate that learning a new language is easier in the early years and the EFI is the best option for this. A plan to only begin immersion in grade 5/6 is too late. Even the developers of the intensive French program needed to publicly state that their program is not intended to replace early immersion. Exposure to French in grade 1 or even kindergarten is preferred as is presently being done in other Provinces.

Minister Lamrock has highlighted "streaming" as one of the main reasons for the elimination of EFI. I think every effort should be made to fix the situation before giving up on a successful program. Inorder for greater inclusion, there needs to be more support for parents and dedicated resources in place. There also needs to be greater access to EFI throughout the Province. As a Father with limited French language skills, I can understand how difficult a decision many parents have to enroll their children in EFI without supports in place. I recall my daughter's grade 1 EFI teacher leaving voice mails each night to help with homework - no other parents in other classes had such a support in place. Proper supports and additional resources will offer the greatest opportunity for bilingualism for students with varying abilities. If "streaming" is really the true reason to eliminate EFI (I doubt it is), I see the present Government proposal only postponing the effect to Grade 6.

In conclusion, I don't pretend to be an education or language expert and find it unfair for the Education Minister to challenge New Brunswickers to "come up with a better plan for FSL (French Second Language) changes by July 25th" or he will move ahead with his plan. However, I trust my comments will be considers as will those I have read that have already been submitted from the Education and Language experts. I trust my comments will allow for the continuation of the early French immersion program in New Brunswick so my youngest son who is PRESENTLY enrolled in grade 1 EFI this Fall will have access to this successful program. In summary, I suggest:

- retain EFI as an option to allow a significant number of students to achieve Advanced French proficiency

- inclusion of some exposure to French teaching in kindergarten

- provide greater supports for parents, additional dedicated resources, and greater access to EFI throughout the Province to allow for more children to enroll and have success in the program

- take the full time it requires to fully review and properly evaluate the comments from New Brunswickers and the alternative plans being proposed from the Education and language experts

If KIDS COME FIRST in New Brunswick, then please have the courage to make the right decision to retain Early French Immersion.

I believe that our system must change, but eliminating EFI is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The report was faulty in its research. Let's start again and consult some people who have researched how children learn a second language. We are a bilingual province and so should be giving children ample opportunities to learn a second language. Beginning french in grade 5 is not early enough. If we are going to have an intensive french term for children, then let's do it as early as possible. The term "elitism" has been used with reference to EFI, which implies that there is no choice for some children. Every child should have the option to enter EFI. The options seem to narrow, however, when a child encounters a learning difficulty while in EFI. Why can't we train more teachers in methods and resources for FSL? With our inclusion policy, teachers are required to meet a large number of special needs within one classroom. Smaller class sizes and more support and resources would help in both English and French classes.

I am a product of Early Immersion in New Brunswick. I am currently employed by the province. In provincially administered bilingual testing I am rated at an Advanced proficiency level for French as a second language.

I've lived a completely bilingual life as a child and adult in NB. I've made Anglophone and Francophone friends. I've worked in environments where I use both official languages.

I'll admit I'm biased about the proposed changes to our current education system. I've always believed that early exposure to a language was a cornerstone of acquired fluency.

And I've still got unanswered questions after reading the available material. A "bilingual learning environment"? What is that going to look like, if it DOES NOT include learning and speaking French?

I agree that changes to the system must be made. But before those changes are undertaken, I'm not convinced that the Government has a clear picture of where this proposed strategy is taking NB. Will the proposed changes REALLY result in 70% of graduates having functional French skills? How many of those graduates will achieve Advanced proficiency ratings?

The pitfalls of streaming are thoroughly discussed in the Government provided material. But what about creating an environment where children can excel? I hope this new system won't result in lowering the bar for all New Brunswickers, but in truly creating an environment where bilingual education is embraced.

To the Minister of Education, please take your time in making this important decision, and carefully consider your goals and the possible consequences of your ultimate verdict.

I would like to state my objections to the changes in the educational system for the following reasons.
My daughter has autism and is starting kindergarten in Sept 2008. She is very bright and can follow a normal classroom easily but because of her condition, needs a full-time aide as she has very little speach capacity. Our daughter belongs in a strong English program. The current program would force my daughter into french immersion in grade 5. This would be detrimental to her. The only alternative would be to put her in a weak resource class where she doesn't belong either. She would lose all her friends to the immersion program and would be alienated.
I am not against french immersion. I am french myself. I just believe that the province of NB should have a strong English program as well as a strong French program. Although it is a very lofty goal, not every child needs to learn French, and those that can't or don't need to shouldn't be pushed aside.

Minister Lamrock,

Please do not stop reading as I do have suggestions to propose, but first I must say that I have found this whole process to be grossly unfair to the parents and children. If the elimination of EFI was being considered (and the emails that Bernard Richard reported indicate that it was), the public should have been notified so that they could prepare accordingly. Many parents cannot choose to enroll their children in the French school system because they have now missed the Kindergarten year. In our own case, we were proactive and transferred our son for Kindergarten so he would not have the stress of switching schools for EFI. If it is removed we are now faced with either the stress of switching him back, or the stress of hoping that his transfer continues to be approved every year. As Judge McLellan said, it is "unfair and unreasonable".

Furthermore I agree with Mr. Richard that the August 5 date leaves only 2 possibilities. Either EFI remains (unlikely since you have said that the status quo is not an option) or the proposed changes are implemented. There seems to be little room for new ideas to be employed but the consultation is what it is, so I will pose my ideas.

1. I would endorse Dr. Joe Dicks' proposal for improvements to the system. His plan addresses your concerns and has been costed to be no more expensive than the Croll/Lee recommendations while his class instruction and entry points for second language instruction are in line with the majority of experts in the field.
2. Should the current (flawed and inaccurate) Croll/Lee proposal be adopted, I would recommend a Grade 2 or 3 entry point rather than grade 5. I would much prefer Grade 1 or kindergarten but feel that Grade 2 or 3 would be a vast improvement on the Croll/Lee proposal.
3. This is the most ambitious of my suggestions. 50% English and 50% French beginning with Intensive French in Kindergarten and moving to 50/50 in Grade 1 and continuing until graduation. The 50/50 model has been used in Early French immersion before and produces excellent skills in both languages (I know people who went through it). Further I would suggest that the English and French school systems be merged into one New Brunswick school system with all children learning in both official languages (with the old systems being grandfathered out). I don't know if such a system would be a violation of Charter Rights, since children would be taught in both languages, but there would no doubt be considerable financial savings from the removal of the duplication of services for parallel school districts.

I look forward to seeing the results of this consultation.

Attn: Mr. Lamrock,

As a teacher in New Brunswick, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to express my view on French Language Instruction in our province.

First, I can speak as a graduate of late immersion. My parents choose to enroll me in English upon entering grade 1 to receive a strong foundation in reading and writing in my mother tongue. I graduated high school with intermediate plus proficiency and went on to complete course work in French at the university level. For me, grade 6 was not too late to learn the language.

Second, I am an elementary English teacher in this province. In my years of teaching, I have experienced first hand the streaming Mr. Lamrock speaks of. Having two language programs, one which is seen as superior provides many challenges in regards to classroom composition. In any given English classroom around N.B. you are sure to find multiple learning difficulties, several special education plans and a handful of severe behavior problems. Immersion classes aren't without their issues but you would be hard pressed to find such a large number of needs in one room.

I have also taught English language arts to Immersion students and have witnessed first hand the difficulties, especially in writing, that these students face. They are missing invaluable instruction when it comes to reading and writing their own language. Also, you must take into account the students who are not successful in the immersion program and are dropped into English classrooms. Often times this is seen as an answer to the problem but what people fail to realize is the child is now behind by several years and must now play catch up.

The elimination of early immersion is the best option for improving our English school districts. Having all students enter the same program with the same resources provides an equal opportunity for all students and allows more funding to help each and every student. I have seen the success of the grade 5 intensive French program and have faith in its effectiveness and the late immersion program.

Please, Mr. Lamrock, stay firm in your decision. I am teaching and our students are learning in English school districts therefore, should we not be providing them with a strong base in English first?

How can you argue with scientific proof.......children learn a second language easier at a younger age.

When I was a child in school the LFI program was offered in Grade 7 and at that time, I myself was to afraid to enter the LFI program. The older a child is the less confidence they have in speaking a different language. Where as in the EFI program all inhibitions are eliminated.

I believe the first step in solving this issue is identifying the goal the Provincial Government is trying to achieve. Since the announcement to eliminate early French immersion, the government has stated that it has done so to improve bilingualism in the Province, improve Provincial test scores and eliminate streaming.

The elimination of EFI is not a "one size fits all" solution.

Experts agree that an individual's ability to master a second language improves the earlier the individual is exposed to that language. Therefore eliminating EFI will not increase the proportion of bilingual citizens in the Province, however, improvements to the Core program will.

I question how re-introducing physical education, music and art at the expense of French in elementary schools will improve Provincial test scores.

Finally, eliminating EFI will not prevent streaming; it will postpone it and potentially magnify it in middle school.

At the end of the day, NB teachers need resources. Resources to assist both EFI and English students who are struggling. The concept of "full inclusion" needs to be revisited, in terms of tailoring programs to meet each students needs. Again, this brings us back to resources. Finally, I truly believe our children are not performing as well as their peers in other Province's because they are not spending enough time in the classroom. For example, an additional 15 minutes per day will add up to almost an extra day a month in the classroom. A lot can be covered in a day!

The children of New Brunswick are the economic drivers of our future. The road to self-sufficiency includes them. We have to get this right and to get it right will take time. Please delay this decision to September 2009, as recommended by the Ombudsman, to ensure the government follows the process imposed by the courts.

At the open house I attended I received the information that I had been searching for, for the last month. The English assessment results for the grade 9 testing. I was not surprised at thr results,as I had suspected it for some time ,as I witness the English skills of my two children currently in early French immersion.
Here is what I found.There is marginal difference between the late and early immersion, at about 80% of the students achieving the acceptable level in reading and writing English skills, compared to about 50% in the English system. The information was in graph form so I am choosing to use approximate figures.
Just seeing this information makes a good argument for streaming. BUT the grade two reading and writing provincial test results showed a difference of less than one percent in the two groups (early immersion vs. non-immersion). So in grade two the two groups were at par with one another. This statistic was not provided by Mr. Lamrock and is never compared because it completely dismisses the argument that children need a good foundation in their mother tongue in order to have a grasp of good reading and writing skills. The way I interpret this information is that the kids in the early formative years of their reading and writing skills are basically the same level. As the children in later grades have to use their knowledge and apply it the early immersion kids out perform the English students because they have a greater grasp of grammar, syntax and an understanding of language in general.
So, I ask myself and fellow New Brunswickers why aren't we all putting our children in Early French immersion. Well that is easy. There is no support if you child struggles, lack of being informed as to what to realistically expect as far as assisting with homework along with the extra commitment that is necessary from parents. Some parents just don't value the fact that their child could graduate from high school and be bilingual and you can't argue with them for that. At the same time I don't feel it is fair to be called selfish and an elitist because we do. It all comes down to choice. It is the government's jobs to ensure those choices are available to all whom may want them.
One road Mr. Lamrock could consider is to make all kids go through the early immersion program. That would certainly end the streaming concern and would produce the 70% goal he has set of our children being able to achieve an intermediate level of French. How would that be accepted among parents who have decided not to enter their children in early immersion? Not very well I suspect. Well that is exactly how parents feel who have decided to put their children in EFI.
Mr. Lamrock has got to fund the support that is needed to make the EFI program more appealing to parents of children who might have difficulties learning and will need extra help. It can be a risky decision to put your child in EFI when there are no TAs or remedial reading assistance available. The way things are right now, if the child falls behind they risk losing a whole year of school if they switch to English too late in the year.
All, I know is that the EFI is producing the greatest number of advanced French speaker and from what I can tell the best English readers and writers as well.
Give high school graduates who can pass the proficiency test a incentive( such as a tax break to help with their student loan or set up a bursary program ) to pursue a career in education, so the shortage of teachers and special education teachers will be addressed in the future.
Mr. Lamrock's lack of vision is quite apparent with this decision. The early French immersion program must be preserved and enhanced. Our children need to be challenged not taught done to a level all can achieve. That practice will continue to produce low assessment results in the years to come.

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 commend Mr. Lamrock for the decision he has made in eliminating Early Immersion. As has been alluded to several times, Early French Immersion creates streaming and is very negatively impacting the success of the English core program. I have read comments and heard of situations where parents choose Immersion for the smaller class sizes and to have their children in classes where the teacher is not having do deal with behavior and learning issues.

Our own children have seen the struggles of some of the children in their English classrooms. They're very much aware that learning doesn't come easy for everyone and some children are faced with tremendous obstacles. They have sat in those incredibily challenging classrooms where teachers as hard as they may try, cannot possibly meet the needs they are faced with. I have spoken to young teachers who don't see a future in their profession in this province. With the current situation in the English classrooms they are recognizing they 're on the path to burnout and are looking elsewhere to continue their careers.

It amazes me when special interest groups make suggestions of adding resources so these children for whom school is a struggle, can enter the Early French Immersion program. I can only assume they are unaware of the frustration and many tears shed by parents who spend hours helping their children at home, worrying that they will get through school feeling proud of themselves, and recognizing that they do have strengths and can become a valuable member of society, and the job force when they get through. For many of these parents, I expect learning French is not on the top of their priority list. They would welcome those resources in the English program however- Perhaps some would like to see very strong Reading Intervention programs for those who are capable but do not learn to read by traditional methods. Others might like to see more Teacher Assistants, smaller class sizes, Guidance counsellors at Elementary level, the trades at the middle and high school level, and the list goes on. With one system then perhaps we would have the resources to provide for some of this.

Our own children went the late immersion route. We felt strongly about having them begin their education in English. We very much wanted to be a part of that, ensuring that they would have a good foundation in their own language. We take pride in our own culture and felt it was important for them as well. We enjoyed being part of the early years, watching the milestones of learning to read and write and being secure in the knowledge that they were not having any specific difficulties. With a solid grasp of their own language we then gave them the choice of entering Late Immersion. What is most interesting is that they sit in classrooms in high school with children who began in Early Immersion. Their marks have been as good as and in many cases better than their Early Immersion peers. This tells us that they can both, comprehend and converse just as well as the Early Immersion students in their class. I can assure you the teacher does not teach to two different groups. This poses the question then why do we need early immersion?

One of our children had the opportunity to take the Intensive Core in grade five. This was an excellent program. That child did very well. It was a great stepping stone to Late Immersion which that child chose to do.

Mr. Lamrock you can best serve the children of this province by providing for a strong Core French program beginning in Kindergarten. We are hearing the AIMS program is a great program. Grade 5 Intensive Core should be a choice. Late Immersion should be kept, with the Math and Sciences remaining in English. This is a huge drawback to the current Immersion programs and why many parents opt out of selecting it for their children. Should streaming occur in the Late Immersion then be aware of it and put in the resources to deal with it.-smaller class sizes and support for teachers.

Will you produce bilingual children. Perhaps. However if not, some will certainly have a strong foundation to enter French programs after high school if they wish. There have always been lots of opportunities for that. Offer a one year program. Send students to Laval or other locations where French is predominant.Being truly immersed in such programs and the French culture is the way those who wish to do so will become bilingual. Bilingualism should not be a goal ahead of creating children with a strong foundation in Literacy, Math and the Sciences in their own language.

Thank you for offering us the opportunity to share our point of view. We commend you for your efforts in trying to create a much needed change.

I am francophone and I must say that I am OPPOSED to the elimination of the EFI program. I feel that in this bilingual province, it is the best program that allows anglophones who choose to learn the language to succeed. I have 3 grand-children who are presently anglophone, as their father is, and my daughter is francophone. It was decided by the parents that the kids would learn french through the EFI program. At this time, my oldest grand child is finishing grade 1 EFI and I am amazed at how well he can communicate with us. I am saddened that the other 2 children, aged 4 years and 1 year, may not have the same opportunity.

Please reconsider your decision.

Here is my suggestion on how to improve the system as per Minister Lamrock's request:

Follow the advice of experts as per your own commissioned studies!! I include here quotes from the various reports commissioned by past New Brunswick governments. I am omitting Croll-Lee as I have thoroughly reviewed it and agree with the many experts out there who have condemned it as flawed at best. I am also excluding Croll-Lee because of the evidence put forth by the Office of the Ombudsman that show beyond a doubt that the report was specifically commissioned to back up a pre-conceived notion with the collusion of senior Dept of Education officials if not the Minister himself:

From the MacKay Report:

I also recommend that the Department of Education engage in a dialogue with relevant parents, teachers and associations to explore ways of making the existing French immersion program more inclusive, and alleviating the concentration of students with learning challenges in the core English program."

Nowhere in Mackay is it suggested that EFI be dropped from the program. More resources to allow for full inclusion and EFi will fix the streaming problem.

From the PricewaterhouseCoopers Report:

"We recommend that officials of the Department of Education act to preserve as many conditions as possible of the entry point features of the present program. Specifically, it is our recommendation that both early and later entry points be maintained."

"...our recommendation focuses on the evident benefits of and broad support we noticed for early exposure to the immersion program, with the added option of allowing for a later entry opportunity."

Again, nowhere in this report does it advocate canceling EFI.

From the Scraba Report:

Recommendations to the Minister:
"Keep the programs that work."
"Ensure everyone is confident the protocol will be effective, and all key voices have been heard."

All sides have agreed that EFI works. There is no debate on that issue so why cancel a program that works because another program does not. Address the reason the other program does not work. if that is streaming then address that problem by curbing streaming by allowing kids with difficulties to stay in the EFI program.

As to the second point from Scraba above... well I think it goes without saying that the current Minister ignored the point completely.

From the Rehorick Report:
I won't bother to quote this report. The whole of the Report offers practical and well thought out suggestions on how to improve the system. Likewise for the newer plan put forth by Dr Dicks and Kristmanson. The Minister would do well to follow their recommendations.

Finally, since it seems that PISA scores are the be-all and end-all for this Minister, perhaps the most useful change he could implement is an effective and standardized method of collecting assessment data.

I am the Chair of my school's PSSC and I was appalled to learn how the testing is currently being tracked. No wonder NB ranks so far below Alberta on our ISA scores when in New Brunswick, if a child misses an assessment day, the child's score is recorded as a Zero. That means that if another child scored 100% on the assessment, the average would still only be 50%. On top of this, children on SEP's are included in the testing results. Alberta DOES NOT include SEP children in their test results.

With the above facts known, is it any wonder NB ranks low on the scale. Fix the errors with the gathering of data and our stats will go up. It's that simple. I work with numbers in my day job and the data currently being gathered and assessed by the Dept of Education is statistically irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out.

I would like to make few points from my own experience:
1. When it come to learning and particularly learning languages, the sooner the better. A steady and consistent learning is much better than intensive learning for shorter time.
2. When you learn a language, you learn a culture and vice versa. When you learn the language in an intensive short course you can't grab the entire cultural context that a multi-year steady learning opportunity from the young age can provide.
3. Learning French form an early age will help the students understand the French culture and accept the difference. This promotes a concept of unity and understanding among New-Brunswickers.
4. Learning French after learning English creates challenges when it comes to pronunciation and grammar. From my own experience, I find learning French before English is even better for pronunciation, grammar and even vocabulary.
5. The fact that students dropped the Early French Immersion programme in order to focus on other subjects (e.g. Math, science,) before entering University does NOT make them loose their bilingualism. Dropping at grade 10 or 11 is not the right indicator.
6. I really find the elimination of the Early French immersion programme (or the so called changes) a big mistake. I perceive that the motives are budget considerations and dealing with the "distribution" of challenged kids over a larger number of classes. We shouldn't resolve a problem by a big mistake.
7. British Columbia is now attracting our bilingual teachers. New Brunswick cannot afford losing these capabilities.
Please Keep the Early French Immersion.