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.

Dear Mr. Lamrock, I am a teacher and I would like to commend you for your attempts to improve education in our province. I do not always agree with your changes or the way you go about implementing them but I feel that the elimination of Early French Immersion is a change which will benefit the majority of children in our province. If we commit our time, talents and resources into building strong literacy skills in grades K through three (at least) the majority of children will be ready for new challenges and those who are struggling will have been identified and receiving support. I have a few suggestions:
1. Now that most children are better prepared when beginning Kindergarten (another change I agree with)we need to make sure that all children get the support they need to develop a good foundation in literacy in K-2. This will require keeping class sizes small, literacy support for as long as necessary and not just until a block of time is over, more resource time and T.A. support for children with behavior problems who constantly disrupt the learning in classrooms. It's time to put your money where your mouth is.
2. You may be able to make more people happy by introducing some French beginning in grade three but this would need to be taught by specialized teachers who choose to do this job. Children should look forward to French the way they look forward to art and phys. ed.
3. Perhaps Intensive French could be a two year program for grades 4 and 5. This must be possible since there have been combined 4/5 classes participating in the program.
4. If your decision is still to eliminate Early French Immersion a committee should be formed immediately to make sure that the Late Immersion Program is strong and to make sure the streaming problem created in the early grades does not recreate itself in Middle School.
5. There must be a better way to inform teachers of changes to curriculum and programs. I'm sure that other professionals do not read about major changes to their jobs in the newspaper.
I strongly believe that all children need an excellent foundation in their own language and I hope that you will not give in to pressure and will continue with the plan to eliminate Early French Immersion.

While French Immersion was not available when I was in school (I grew up in Labrador)I had a younger sister who was enrolled in French Immersion in Kindergarten and a younger brother who was enrolled in French Immersion in Grade 6. My sister is very comfortable with the French language and uses it easliy. To my knowledge my brother has never used his French since he finished high school.

I can not provide whatever is the perfect formula for offering french education in the school system... EXCEPT... that it has to start from Day 1. We begin all our other education (number and word recognition, math, reading, etc.)at Day 1 and I think the same must go for French. To wait until grade 5 and then force everyone into an intense French Education program sounds like a plan destined for failure. The foundation for language (or any other learning) happens best when we begin young - there seems to be no disputing this simple fact.

My son starts Kindergarten this September and the knowledge that he will not be exposed to the French language in the school system until Grade 5 is quite frankly appallingly. If the school system does not provide, I will find a way in some other manner to expose him to French but I really feel that the best place for him to learn French is in school (and then supplemented with fun learning opportunities outside the school system).

One last comment, I beleive that there has to be choice. For the life of me, I can not understand why a parent would not want to provide their child with the possible benefit and gift of two langauages when they finish school, but ultimately, that is a parent's choice to make and that choice should be left intact.

I am a father of 4 and a grandfather of 5 . I am thankful that after years of reports and recommendations from both liberal and conservatives , that some has the political will and fortitude to finally address a a situation that has long troubled the education system.Everyone of my children have entered French Immersion at the late point, two completed the program completing it with the same level of proficiency as their peers in early immersion.They also had a better English skills than most of their peers in early immersion. I am a firm believer in getting a good grasp of your own language first , then starting a second language.I saw first hand this problem when I was a cub leader.Early immersion students could not read their handbook in either French or English as they were not proficient in either language yet.I have seen first hand that benefits of late immersion and applaud this governments decision to move forward on these recommendations. I believe that they will make for a better more well rounded education system at the early years level. Stay the course as those of us in the silent majority believe you should, but are tired of hearing negative comments about our beliefs. Thank you.

I will start by saying; changes are definitely needed to the education system.
I am not an expert in languages, statistics, or education. However both the recent Scraba and MacKay reports have indicated that it is stressed beyond its capacity. Scraba strongly recommended that no new changes be implemented into the system until it is stabilized. She further writes, "The contributors to the failure of the system to educate its young people include: .constant change in curriculum, absence of a culture of healthy dissent and discussion, poor (or no) use of assessment data and information, policy initiatives driven by theory rather than practice"
The proposed changes based on the absolutely fraudulent (quoting today's papers) and flawed (quoting too many to list) FSL Report will do nothing short of creating a bigger mess.
Some of my concerns are:
A. We will not graduate more bilingual students.
i. The program developers have advised the province "we wish to make it clear we were not associated with the government's decision to eliminate early French immersion "
ii. Most L2 experts state that the best time to learn a second language is early and that there are significant cognitive benefits of learning a second language.
B. We will not solve classroom composition problems in rural areas and schools that do not presently have EFI.
C. The proposed FSL program has never been piloted anywhere in the world (zero French instruction until grade 5 followed by 5 months of intensive French.) We are supposed to take a leap of faith with the Minister, going from worst to first. The Minister's actions of late have not instilled much confidence in myself (I'm referring to Mr. Justice H. H. McLellan ruling and the Ombudsman's report) and neither do Mr Lamrock's comments in his own Blog, "I have some pretty strong ideas, but I also don't believe that I, and a few folks in my office, are going to single-handedly make our province a leader in education."
D. I have reservations about Intensive French Program. In the NBTA survey from 2007 Statement #5 indicates that teachers have concerns about province wide implementation'...there were frequent concerns....about making the program mandatory, mainly stating that parents should have a choice on whether or not to enrol their child. ...Some advantages that could disappear if it were implemented province-wide. ...the program should not be greatly expanded..."

What do wish for?
- Aim starting in Kindergarten and continuing for all Core instruction (mandatory until 9 or 10) (At my daughter's school 2006-07 grade 1= 20 EFI/ 20 Core, in 2007-2008 after Aim was introduced in kindergarten in 2006-2007, grade 1= 30 EFI/ 9 Core)
- EFI as the sole entry point for immersion. Using Joe Dick's proposal properly resource /train grade one teachers similar to what the Ontario College of teachers recognizes in special education. This will keep struggling students in the program.
* Ľ of the children are in EFI and are succeeding. Rather than lowering the bar to help raise the bar, why don't we encourage more children to rise up to the level of the bar? Using the Aim model in kindergarten encourage more children to enter EFI. In rural areas where the numbers would support EFI we could have it. And having it properly resourced using Joe Dick's plan to train MR teachers start resourcing teachers for latter grades of EFI.
-Some independent testing of the Intensive French program. I would like to see it graduate some students and see what level they of French they obtain before province wide adaptation of the program
-That we look at curriculums from across the country and around the world. No need to reinvent the wheel. Examine those that have similar issues as we do; bilingual, rural, similar budgets. Also look at areas that have great success and have invested money. We need people with PhD's developing our curriculums. I am unaware of any at the DoE.
-Hire our teachers for the next year early. Seek out the top graduates before they go elsewhere.
- That we get honest about the real problems:
Improperly Implemented Inclusion.
Have some real discussions with teachers (streaming is not necessarily bad, mixed ability classes as long as each stream is resourced) and hold students accountable, motivate them and teach them respect for themselves and others.
We have diversity in the school population. Not all children arrive at school with the same abilities. Some children due to physical or mental challenges or due lack of preparedness are not going to succeed in a second language.

I support the Intensive French Initiative. There is no need to conduct further reports/commissions. The work has been previously done...over and over. To delay implementation offers NO improvement in programme offering and instruction. It is time that Equal Opportunity be made available to all students in Public School settings. The data gathered over the past several years does not show impressive growth or signifigant gains in proficiency levels. The time to move forward with the proposed cahnges is now. I commend the Minister for having the courage and honesty to address this long standing issue. To maintain the status quo is an injustice to our Social and Cultural fabric and in particular our students...

Dear Sir/Madam,

I strongly believe that Early Immersion is the best possible way to learn a second language. With this submission, I hope to elaborate on my position, as well as provide some useful alternatives to the proposed changes to the French Second Language Program.

The Younger the Better
It has been proven time and time again that the younger a child is, the better he or she will absorb a language, including its structure, vocabulary, and accent. I understand the desire to streamline the Immersion program based on considerations both financial and academic. However, why does the proposed program wait to start children in French in Grade 5? If a child does not hear a word of French until he or she is 10 years old, it is simply too late.
Suggestion: Start an Intensive French program in Grade 3. By this time, children will have had two years of foundation in English and mathematics, but they will still be young enough to quickly absorb a second language. Furthermore, if children were exposed to a small amount of French in the early years (K-2), they would develop an ear for the language, facilitating their transition to French Immersion in Grade 3.

Teaching "Extras" in French
The Department of Education's news release of March 14, 2008, states that the gained instructional time from the elimination of Core French at the elementary grades will be used for art, music, physical education, and enrichment opportunities. I do not disagree that art, music, and physical education are important for a child's development; in fact, I think these subjects are essential in the development of well-rounded citizens.
Suggestion: Teach art, music, and physical education in French. This will serve a double duty of developing the students' ear for French in the early years, as well as ensuring that art, music, and physical education are taught.

Transferring Students
One criticism of the Early French Immersion program is that it is elitist. Often, this is because children are transferred out of the French Immersion program as soon as they exhibit academic or behavioural problems, even if they are not experiencing problems with the French language. Very quickly, this practice leads to a situation in which the well-behaved children who get good grades are primarily in the Immersion classes, while the non-Immersion teachers are asked to teach all those with learning disabilities, behavioural problems, etc.
Suggestion: Eliminate transfers out of the French Immersion program (recommendation 2b in the report) and give French Immersion teachers the support and resources they need to teach children of all abilities.

Implications
Before making a decision such as the one to eliminate Early French Immersion, the government should step back and consider the implications of the decision on the future of New Brunswick. In the documentation on the proposed program, the government indicates that the new proficiency targets for French Immersion will be Intermediate Plus rather than Advanced. Thus, by its own admission, the government expects to produce graduates with a lower level of French language than were produced in the Early French Immersion program. This decision will lead to a population that is less able to communicate amongst itself. Anglophone New Brunswickers (who have gone through the proposed program and who have achieved a level of Intermediate Plus) will be less able to communicate with their Francophone neighbours, further dividing linguistic communities in the province. Furthermore, because a large number of Francophones are bilingual, uni-lingual Anglophones will miss out on employment and advancement opportunities because they cannot speak a second language. In my work and personal life in New Brunswick, I have met many Anglophone New Brunswickers who wished that they could communicate better in French. I have not met a single bilingual person who wished he or she were not able to speak a second language.

As I have explained in this submission, there are many things that could be done to improve the Early French Immersion system, rather than replacing it altogether with a new program. I hope that these suggestions will be taken seriously.

Today, when putting my second son's name on the preschool list for an immersion class, I was told that under the Province's new "Early Learning and Child Care Curriculum" that child care facilities had to choose between English and French programs - beginning Sept. 2008 - and that there will be no more immersion preschools in government approved child care facilities.

As this was news to me, I called the Dept. of Social Development (who tried to refer me to Dept. of Education) for more information. Finally, I was able to leave my name to have someone call me back. I'm still waiting....

I'm just wondering if this is linked to the proposed changes within our school system and whether the consulation process can include this aspect as well? We had hoped that the immersion preschool would help prepare our sons for French School (if there is no EFI). But, just like regular school, the preschools won't take kids that aren't already understanding French.

It seems to me that under the proposed systems (school and preschool), there is no opportunity for French SECOND language development by trained educators until grade 5 - I beleive this is too late. I am a product of EFI, and hold an advanced level bilingual essential position. I always felt the FI weakness was in the later years, when there was less and less offered in French. For example, once I was in high school, and took math, sciences and advanced math (which were only offered in English) I was left with 1 elective - I took grade 12 French - as an elective!

I feel like I am being forced to enroll my children in French school/preschool eventhough our home and family life is predominately English. And this raises other issues within our family which is a mixture of anglophones and francophones (but I won't go there now). There is no doubt in my mind that immersion would work best for us, so long as it starts early.

I sure would appreciate a response from you (i.e. the Province) on this, and sooner than later...time is running out...

Thank You.

I am not in support of the proposed changes to the FSL programs as they presently stand.

I am a high school teacher, and a parent to three small children.

Being francophone, I had the wonderful opportunity to learn the English language early on and to be fluently bilingual by the age of 3. My parents raised my sister and I in a francophone environment, and I learned English through neighborhood kids, radio and television.

I feel that removing EFI from our school education plan is a detriment to those families who wish for their children to be able to learn French. Acquiring the French language is obviously not as easy to learn outside of the classroom in NB because it is not heard in public nearly as much. This is their best chance to learn it. And it works!

My husband and I chose to speak in English to our three young children because I have seen how well EFI and LFI immersion kids can communicate in BOTH languages at the high school level. My oldest son has completed his first year in immersion and we are amazed at how well he can understand us amd spaek with us.

Luckily for us, I can prepare my youngest 2 children to enter the francophone system, which is what we will be doing should immersion (early) be abolished.

I feel that anglophone parents should have the opportunity to choose to provide an immersion program to the families who want this opportunity for their children. it is the best way!

I am for the idea of intensive french, although I feel french should be introduced earlier than grade 5. It doesn't make sense to me to throw students into intensive french in grade 5 without some level of background in the language.

I feel immersion in grade 6 is way too late. Kids have their own ideas by then and are influenced by peers, and I feel a lower amount of students will choose to opt for the immersion program.
Perhaps an entry into immersion in grade 3 would be better than in grade 5(I still think the earlier the better).

I have worked in both Core and Immersion programs and I understand the concerns of many in regards to streaming. Eliminatong immersion may eliminate streaming for a little while, but it will return at later grades(and probably be worse if this "new" program goes through as is).

Please reconsider youe decision. This affects many people in NB. Bilingualism is important to many, not to all, but to many.

I am writing to show my support of your decision to eliminate Early French Immersion.
I am an early years teacher and a mother of young children who will be entering the education system in the next few years.
As a mother I feel strongly that my children should learn to read and write in their mother tongue before learning to read and write in a second language.
As a teacher I have seen many parents struggle with the decision of which program their children should follow in grade one. Some feel pressure from other parents to put their child into Immersion to keep them out of English classes. Then I later see the children who struggled in Immersion return to English often far behind their peers due to all the missed time.
This has been a problem for many years now and other solutions have not worked. This is the first time a gouvernment has been brave enough to take this step, knowing there would be a group strongly against it and I commend you.
I think the suggestion to start French instruction in Kindergarten will result in even more problems. Many children are nervous and shy when starting Kindergarten and to put them into a language they are unfamiliar with would make this harder for them to adjust. If French Immersion began in Kindergarten when would the children get a base in the mother tongue?
I believe that having all children in the English program in K-3/4, then have Intensive French in grade 4 or 5, followed by either Late Immersion or an Enhanced French program makes the most sense. I believe it was Marie Cashion who suggested that after grade 5 have the students classes mixed when possible to help to eleviate the streaming problem in middle school.
Thank you and please continue with your plan for the school year 2008-2009.

As a parent of three children in Elementary school, I am aware that Mr. Lamrock's decision will affect our family greatly. I must admit that I DO AGREE with Mr. Lamrock's decision, eventhough it may have happened rather quickly. I do think that removing Core French instruction may have been a poor decision. I think that Core French should begin in Kindergarten and then Intensive French take place in Grade 5. Then follow up with either French Immersion in Grade 6 or continue with Core French. I think we would see a much higher success rate with the Grade 5 French program if the children received Core French instruction from Kindergarten. They would have some of the basics before they are put into the Intensive French program. We must remember that the Intensive French program may be so successful right now because of the fact that these students have received Core French since Kindergarten. I am thrilled that the students will be receiving more time for Phys. Ed., Music, and Arts. I remember when I was in Elementary school we had a teacher for all of these subjects and then this gave the homeroom teacher more time to work resource with the children who might need extra help. As a parent who is quite active in the school, I have seen the English instruction teachers having to deal with many extra situations in their classrooms, such as large numbers and special needs students, while the French instruction teachers for the most part have very low numbers and very rarely a child with special needs. I am hoping that Mr. Lamrock will stay strong with his decision! However, I do hope that he will take some of the suggetions about the Core French program into consideration. Thank you.

I am writing to express my strong support for the changes that have been proposed for our English school system. The current system is sub standard and needs to be overhauled in order to provide all children with a quality education.

Changing the way that French is taught to our children is long overdue. Children need to have a strong base in their mother tongue before a second language should be taught. We need to focus on their English skills, particularly in reading, in the early years. Without strong reading skills all of their other subjects will suffer.

Teaching children a second language is a great thing. It provides them with a valuable life skill and enhances their overall learning. Two of my children have gone through the Late Immersion program and I have been very impressed with the results. Delaying the introduction of French language instruction is not a negative. In fact I think that the opposite is true. The children will be much stronger students overall.

I do realize, however, that not all parents share this view. I would suggest that you allow those parents to enrol their children in the French school system. If people feel that strongly about their children getting a French education then they should have the choice of whether to send their children through the English or French system.

In addition, it would be beneficial if the Intensive French started earlier than Grade 5. This might not necessarily be possible but even starting it in Grade 3 or 4 would be an improvement.

Finally one of the big problems that I see with our current school system is promoting students to the next grade level even though they have not met the grade level requirements. This is not fair to anyone, and particularly not to that child. Children need to be given the chance to repeat a grade, if necessary, so that they can properly learn the material. Otherwise they just get further and further behind and eventually just give up.

Again, you have my strong support.

Please delay making a decision on FSL for at least one year, which would give the government enough time to commission a thorough and honest research and report, by experts in FSL and education, on the necessary changes to the overall education system. This is and should be about more than just language education. It is also about the overall quality of education in NB - which is helped, not hindered, by language immersion.
The culprit for NB's poor education is not EFI, but lack of resources, and insufficient support for total inclusion. If NB intends to include special needs children in mainstream classes, then it must commit resources to all classes for these students, not just Core classes - otherwise it is not total inclusion. Also, these students are exempt from standardized tests, yet their tests are still counted. Why not allow them to take the tests (with proper support, as is done in California) and then add their scores. Or, if they are exempt, do not count their tests. This seems a strikingly easier way to raise test scores overall, than by dispersing EFI children in all the classes.
My short term advice is: keep EFI, add Intensive French to the Core program, and give the final decision on what happens to education another year to allow thorough research that includes studying education models in other parts of the world with good education outcomes.

Sad. This is the only way to describe the decision to remove EFI from NB. That is the prime time to teach children another language.

It is an embarassment to be from such a backwards province - the only bilingual province in Canada yet we choose not to teach French to our kids. Nice. Brilliant actually.

Mr. Lamrock, how do you go out in public without hanging your head in shame?

Mr. Lamrock:

I am extremely disappointed by your decision to eliminate Early French Immersion (EFI) in the New Brunswick school system. The following points detail my opposition:

1) This course of action goes against a tremendous amount of evidence that language instruction at an early age is clearly the most effective avenue to bilingualism.

2) Your decision was clearly based on the Croll-Lee report-a document that has been widely discredited by many academics at New Brunswick universities.

3) Your numbers regarding the efficacy of the current program are inaccurate due to the fact that many high school students are forced to withdraw from the French Immersion program (after grade 10) as advanced level courses are not offered in French. Consequently, these students are never tested for their French ability. My 16-year-old son is a casualty of this situation; fortunately, by grade 10, his French language ability was already at an advanced level. Clearly, even a flawed EFI program has worked beautifully for him.

4) EFI is a successful program. What sense does it make to eliminate it because the English program is not working? Why not strengthen both programs? More importantly, why not strengthen the EFI program so that more students are able to participate fully?

5) New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. How can we possibly hold up our heads knowing that our educational goal is to have 70% of the student population functioning, on average, at an 'Intermediate' level of French language proficiency? We know that an 'Intermediate' level does not come close to true bilingualism. It is extremely important that the future leaders of New Brunswick have an opportunity to acquire an advanced proficiency in the use of the French language.

6) It will become very difficult to attract sorely needed professionals to the province-in particular, physicians. Such professionals expect high educational standards for their children as well as a measure of choice.

7) Families leaving the province will be at a distinct disadvantage when moving to other provinces in Canada. Those who wish to enrol their young children in EFI programs (still available in every other province) will be turned away if their children have not already participated in similar programs.

8) Anglophone students deserve the same educational choice as Francophone students. In other words, they deserve to have the choice of being educated in either French or English at an early age. With the execution of your proposed educational changes, Anglophone children would cease to have the same choice as Francophone children. This would constitute discrimination, unacceptable in today's society.

Although I support the comprehensive alternative plan submitted by Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson (UNB) titled "An Alternative Plan for FSL in New Brunswick", ultimately, I believe that the Ombudsman's call for a much longer consultative period is prudent. Any contemplated sweeping and/or experimental changes to the province's educational system must be thoroughly investigated, with broad input. It would be a great injustice to the children of New Brunswick to so hurriedly adopt the flawed recommendations of a discredited report. I urge you to postpone these changes for the sake of our children.

As a parent who went through the entire French Immersion Program from grade 1-12 and who successfully has learned other languages, it is from experience that I draw your attention to the research done by psychologists who study children and adolescents and their development. Repeatedly it has been shown that their minds are open and eager. Their natural joy and love of learning is especially obvious while young. Many countries have more than one lanaguage taught and used in the early years. We must give the children of New Brunswick the best we can throughout their formal education and not loose faith in their abilities to catch on. We need to show them that we will do all we can at every stage to help them. This province is biligual. Children in both languages need to acknowledge each other and learn each other's language and cultures. We are one Canada.
The entire education system can not be fixed in 6 weeks. Far more is involved that just the Early French Immersion. To model honesty to our children, it must be acknowledged that more time is needed to do the job correctly, to have solid short and long-term goals. If it a question of cost, where do we limit the cost of educating the future citizens of NB? They deserve our very best thought out plans we can provide.

I must say that I was quite upset when I discovered that the early french program was being eliminated. I have 2 kids-1 in grade 3 french & 1 going into grade 1. I think it would be very unfair not to allow my 2nd daughter the same opportunity as her sister.
French has been a necessary challenge for my 9 year old;however, I do feel that she may benefit from having Math be taught in English.
I ask that you please reconsider your decision!

I feel that this is too important a matter to "leave to the public." Minister Lamrock should be consulting with FSL "experts" (ie: Dr. J. Dicks, P. Kristmanson, Dr. Genessee).
I am also disppointed in this public consultation period as there is no accountability.

As a student entering grade 12 in September, and having completed Core French 112 in my second semester of grade 11, I have some important views to share.
I have never been had access to the Immersion program since I attend a small school. However, I have heard few positive comments from students who have been in the Intensive program at one time or another. The complaints: Teachers are bad, lack of courses in FI, level 1 FI is like level 2 English, texts are outdated...
I have however been in the Core program for the past 10 years and the best way I can describe the Core French program is sad, very, very SAD. Teachers are frustrated with the complete lack of resources, and have basically given up on attempting curriculum delivery.

There were only 13 students in my class, and this was a combined class of French 112 and 122. Only 3 of the students were in the 122 course. None of those 3 achieved the intermediate level on the proficiency exam.

Throughout the semester I often thought about why so few students had chosen to take French. The reasons quickly became apparent.
Teachers are tired of being ignored by the Dept. of Education and students could not care less about the Core program.
Students in my school generally think of French 112 and 122 as a total waste of time. "I'm not going to remember anything anyway." Is a comment I've heard all too many times.

I can say that after taking French 112, I am no more comfortable with the French language than I was before. I have already made the decision that I will NOT be taking French 122. I will take ANY course before I take French again.

The current program isn't working, so please, go ahead with the planned changes.

I am a French Immersion teacher since 2000 and I have been working with EFI students since 1995. I also studied with Mrs Rehorick and Mr Dicks at UNB and I am extremely disappointed with Mr Lamrock decision to cut the EFI program. This is a huge mistake and I only hope that decision will be changed and that a new government will soon be in this province.

I am absolutely 100% behind the new intensive core program. The problem is that we bring something new and take away something that works. In the end, the province will be losing more than gaining if gain there is. I have been working with Early and Late Immersion through my career and there is quite a difference. The difference is not the language in itself but more tha attitude and the openess towards a second language. I explain, a six year old is like a sponge and if expose to anything, it will learn it. It doesn't matter if it's soccer, reading, horseback riding, chess, math, spanish or french. A certain individual might have been a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky but he was just not expose to hockey so he became a wonderful writer because his mother was reading to him every night since he was born. More we expose children to the most possibilities, more they will grasp and develop abilities that other children or adult will not. It doesn't mean that they will be the best at everything they are exposed but they will be able to do it. Languages are not different than anything else. How often to you see a child entering school and can barely speak or doesn't know his last name or doesn't know how old he is. This has nothing to do with capabilities but with exposure from the parents. So if a parent is working hard to develop his child potantial, this parent should have the opportunity to send his child to EFI. I'm shock how languages is seen as such a debate between french and english. In Europe, if you speak only 2 languages, you are almost considered illiterate! Language is culture, is knowledge, is something no one can take away from an individual.
Earlier I was talking about attitude towards the language. A six year old is open minded, ready to learn anything and everything. A 12 year old is entering a period of his life where nothing is cool anymore. Parents are not cool, studying? Are you kidding me? School? No way! Learning a new language? You are joking right? Teenage years are not the best and this is that period you choose to go in and learn a new language? Not the best. I don't want to generalise, there is excellent LFI students but I'm talking about the whole culture, everything around the language. Time to do research? They'll do it in english and then translate it. French music, tv shows, movies? Not interested. At the opposite, the EFI students grew up with all of those and they became a second nature, almost natural to them.

Now the core program...well, the program in place could do it but probably the intensive core will improve it but not if it's run like the one now. The actual core program right now can be summarize this way; you can fail every single year and still go up to the next level. Well, nothing can be very successful if it's like that. At the same time, is French the only problem or the whole system is? I thought math and science most of my career and every year students who failed keep getting "placed" or somehow "promoted" to the next grade. No system can work if runned like that! Quite a message to the students;" Failed, you'll be promoted anyway!" Hard to motivate those 2 sisters I had this year when their brother the year before didn't pass a single subject but still went on to the nexst grade! This is the reality of our current school system. So it's not the the EFI program who's at fault but the whole education system.

Now for the supposedly extra money that FI students get...well, I would like to see it Mr Lamrock. I don't even have textbooks so where is the money, "show me the money". Please I want to know what I got more and didn't see over the past 8 years! I have students with special needs but they have no help since no resources in french. I don't have 3 or 4 teacher's assistants(at $15 an hour each) like some english classes. So where is the extra cost of FI?

Now to some people who say that there's not enough teachers for FI and that they only have a job because they speak french and that their teaching skills are not the best. Well, a teacher is trained as a teacher and it has nothing to do with the language. I saw awesome french teachers and also awesome english ones but there is also weaker teachers in both field and it has nothing to do with the language each speaks. It's like any job, you can find all levels of competency. A french policemand is not better than an english one and vice-versa.
If there is a problem, it's with the Core French teachers who often are there because "they can speak french". Well, there is Core French teachers whom I have never heard a french word from so let's think about that for a minute. At the opposite, an immersion teacher is speaking french at a higher level of proficiency.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to take away EFI because the intensive core DOES NOT replace it. The solution is to keep EFI, implement the intensive core and make sure EVERY subject, including French, is passed before moving on. If promotion policies stays the same, there is no way the 70% will be attain and there is no way the results in other subjects will improve as well.

Je suis une enseignante d'immersion en 2e année depuis déjŕ neuf ans et je suis convaincue que ce programme fonctionnne. Je vois aussi des élčves du côté anglophone qui adorent le francais et qui le parlent avec fiérté. Le programme AIM est un énorme succčs et il a fait ses preuves. Il offre une bonne base en francais pour les élčves de la 1čre ŕ la 5e année.
Voici mes suggestions:
1) Garder le programme AIM jusqu'ŕ la 4e année et avoir le francais intensif ŕ partir de la 5e année.
2) Garder l'immersion précoce, mais offrir des ressources pour les enseignant(e)s et du support pour les élčves ayant des difficultés d'apprentissage, et ce de la 1čre ŕ la 12e année. Oů sont les enseignant(e)s ressources en immersion? Nous avons un(e) enseignant(e)s de support en litératie pour trois mois, mais le reste de l'année scolaire? Cet aide est pourtant fourni aux classes anglophones. Si c'est un défi, de trouver des personnes qualifiées en francais pour combler ces postes, faîtes tout simplement du recrutement dans tout le pays. Les autres provinces le font.
3) Former un comité pour travailler conjointement avec les universités (UNB,STU et Université de Moncton) pour s'assurer que les futurs enseignante)s soient formés pour enseigner en immersion.
4) Offrir des ateliers de formation spécifiques ŕ l'immersion aux journées de perfectionnement des enseignants en aout et durant l'année scolaire.

Je pense qu'on se doit de s'assurer que les enfants de cette province apprennent le francais le plus tôt possible dans leur vie scolaire et que l'argent nécessaire soit investit en support additionnel pour assurer leur succčs.

Dear Minister Lamrock,

I have been teaching in the school system for 28 years. I have watched the change that occurred as French Immersion came in and expanded. Year after year children deemed "cream of the crop" or with parents with higher education/means, left their community of friends to become part of the chosen few. It became a status symbol with parents to be able to say, "My child is in French Immersion". If your child was not, it was immediately seen as shameful and that the child must not be very bright. As they went into higher grades the classes became smaller and smaller, thus creating a cozy, small group of children. Parents rested content knowing that their children were not with the "riff raff", but were with others receiving a quality education, away from behavioural disturbances. My three children were amongst them. Believing in the program really had nothing to do with it. It was the fear that if we did not enroll our children in this, then we would be refusing our children an opportunity others had, putting them behind in some important way, refusing them a second language.
So what was wrong with that? We already know and talk about the effect it has on the "other students". The ones who have parents who have biases against the French culture or language; those who do not recognize the importance of a second language; those who do not get involved in educational decisions; those who do not recognize their child's aptitude or interest. They congregate in large classes, feel their "diminished" place in society and build on those biases and resentment of not being among the chosen few. Once in Grade 9 my daughter was streamed into a Math class for those struggling with Math. She did not complain about the stigma. She noted that it was much harder because before when she didn't understand something, she asked the student next to her. Now, she said, the student next to her doesn't understand either! I believe this also relates to the FI issue.
So what about those select few who move on into their own little world in Gr. 1? In smaller schools they travel through their whole school history with the same group of students. Those who believe there are no behaviour problems in those classes don't understand the misery of cliques, harassment and snobbery. They lose out on gaining the understanding of helping those with special needs, of working in groups with students of all abilities, of living the true sense of community. Elitism is rampant enough in the outside world. Is it necessary for us to sow it in Gr. 1?
We also know the pedagical reasons for the need to change so I will not speak on the success rate of the program. For years we have known this system was wrong. I think the new plan is brilliant. it gives all students the opportunity to learn French properly. They can then decide to move on to continue it in greater depth after. My mother, sister and brother have all learned new languages as adults and are bilingual. They did not even have to develop an "ear" early in their lives. I believe this program will move us closer to a truly bilingual province where there is understanding and appreciation for both languages, both cultures.

I applaud you for taking this most difficult stance. I cannot imagine the pressure you and your staff are under but I thank you for finally looking at how to truly improve the educational system for all students!

I have a daughter entering her 3rd year in early immersion and it is amazing how she has the capacity to both read,write and speak in french and in english. I want to keep the early immersion program. I want my son to have the same opportunity that his sister had. My first language is french and I know, not that I am an expert or anything, but I know that my son will not be fluent in french like his sister if he only starts to learn it in grade 5. Keep early immersion!!!!!!

Here is my suggestion:
1) Keep EFI.
2) Provide more resource help as soon as possible to all children even those in EFI, starting in Kindergarten and even if it is in English.
3) Replace Core French with the proposed Intensive French program.
4) (see 2): provide help to the children struggling into that program as well)
5) Insure that each program is properly and fairly tried (provide enough resources)
6) After 10 years of coexistence, evaluate the programs: if IF is clearly better than EFI, then parents will have dropped their children from EFI and invaded the IF program.
Keep the LFI program since the IF may increase capacity for this program.
This may be costly. But aren't we a bilingual province within a country with two official languages?

Mr.Lamrock,

I have been delayed in writing to you in this forum as I have been on vacation so let me begin by saying that I think this process should have taken place during the school year. While I was away I met with many people from across Canada and Canadians living abroad that met your proposal to eliminate EFI with disbelief and extreme disappointment. Many of them had benefitted from EFI and had jobs that required fluency in the French language. It was embarrassing to even attempt to explain the situation to these people. Hasn't it been proven that Early Immersion is the most effective way to learn a second language, they asked. It is that simple.

In my 4 years of experience with EFI, I have seen an intentionally malnourished program that teachers have struggled to make work. If the government really wants to improve French education in New Brunswick for all, then give the EFI program adequate support so that parents of children who experience difficulty in Kindergarten and parents of children with special needs are not afraid to enroll their children in the program. It is that simple.

Dear Minister of Education,
Thank you for providing the "Putting Our Kids' Achievement First" discussion paper for New Brunswick. In the summary section, respondents are asked to consider the questions and send responses. The following comments include my thoughts for improvement and address the five questions presented.
1. In order to achieve strong French second language skills, all children should receive equal amounts of French and English education from grade one to grade twelve. When French only and English only schools exist, segregation is promoted versus integration.
2. Parents and communities can support second language learning by the government providing more social/recreational programs that involve both French and English languages combined. We as communities have an obligation to promote French learning and need to commit ourselves to learning -at minimal, conversational French. French learning should not stop when the school day ends.
3. Consider examining current English, math and science programs. Only through a critical examination of our current practices can we develop appropriate programs to meet the needs of our population. We need to examine not only the content of these subject areas being taught but contextual factors as well.
4. By having French and English education at a 50/50 ratio, this may help streaming issues. I believe that there is a need to examine the size of the classes and take into consideration the diverse learning needs of the children and the current resources.
5. Extend the school day to ensure physical education is included. (For example, instead of ending the school day at 2pm; provide gym from 2:00-245pm). We need more public education and promotion towards active and healthy living with plenty of opportunities to ensure success. The costs of sports, from soccer $92.00 this summer for one child (I have three children) to hockey, etc. is becoming problematic for the average New Brunswick family. Recreational activities need to be affordable for ALL New Brunswick children.

I believe that living in a bilingual province, we need to have French education available from the beginning, starting in grade one. Kids are worth it and deserve the opportunity!