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.

As an elementary FI teacher I am aware of the class composition challenges faced by teachers working in the inclusive school system we have here in NB and I witness daily the frustrations of teachers who lack support. However removing Early French Immersion is not a solution. We need smaller classes across the board with a limit on the number of Special Education Plans (SEPs) that can be in one classroom, max.(2-3 SEPs) per class with teacher aids to support these students. Teachers can not effectively teach while dealing with the numerous interruptions that happen in today's inclusive classrooms as well as in some cases having half the class on a SEP. A disruptive classroom is not fair for students and teachers and creates a watered down learning environment for all students and curriculum goal cannot be met.
I witness each day with my own 2 yr old whose father speaks to him in French and with my primary class how children of this age soak up the language. I learned to speak French in post-secondary studies after years of effort, traveling and paying for classes out of my own pocket. I can attest that the older one becomes the more challenging learning a second language becomes, brain studies and language experts agree.
Experts also agree that learning a second language does not interfere with success in a first language. I have always known that I would have the responsibility of my son's exposure to English when being schooled in French just as I am responsible for his learning from ages 0-5 yrs. We do not live in an area with a Francophone school so this is not an option.
I agree with the comments I have read that realize that socio-economics play a huge role in success at school and we should be investing greatly in pre-school, parent support, breakfast programs, etc. Also an inclusive school environment needs to be supported by additional personnel as it was supposed to be or we will continue to struggle in Math, English, and Science. Removing language is counterproductive and is removing the availability of enrichment for all students.
It is your duty Mr. Lamrock to consult with the experts and to extend the consultation process to study the problems facing our education system in depth, openly listening to well prepared solutions for French Second Language Education. Do not make rash decisions to cancel a positive program without studying the best solutions. Our future generations of bilingual New Brunswickers are depending on you.

Mr. Lamrock, Sorry I couldn't make it to either of the Open Houses in my area, but summertime is a very busy time for me as it is for most people.

I agree that we need to do something about adding more time for Physical education and improving results in Literacy, Math and Science. I also agree that the Core French program is not working. I have one child in the English/Core French program and my personal experience is that no-one takes Core French seriously. They didn't when I was in school 30 years ago either. I don't like the fact that new Intensive French is mandatory, but I am open to new ideas and just about anything would be an improvement over the current system. I would suggest using the time for Core French to increase time in PE, Math, Literacy and Science. Further more, I believe that Elementary schools need to have a PE teacher.

I also have 2 children in EFI (Early French Immersion) and I very much support that program. If there are not enough French teachers to support both the EFI and the Late Immersion program then I would rather see the Late Immersion program cancelled. If the new Intensive French/Post Intensive French program is going to achieve the results expected, then I believe that EFI is the best alternative to complement the Intensive French/Post Intensive French and achieve the results that are desired. From personal experience of my oldest child (now in high school)in EFI indicates that the Late Immersion students are behind the EFI students by a significant margin when they hit grade 9. Alot of time in Grade 9 was spent reviewing and re-learning things that he had already learned in earlier grades that the Late Immersion students hadn't seen before. It would also be less impact to cancel Late Immersion program since it only starts in Grade 6 as opposed to Grade 1. The 'grandfathering' phase would be half as long.

Every year in February, including this year, just days before the announcement to scrap the EFI program, representatives from District 8 visit the elementary school where my children go (as well as several others) and host a meeting to parents of kindergarten children. At that meeting every year, they present a slide show of results from EFI in past years and explain to all parents present why EFI is such a good choice for their childrens education. I have two young children as well that haven't started Grade 1 yet, but I would very much like to have the option to enroll them in EFI in 2009 and 2011.

~Low French proficiency.
The implementation of an Intensive French program, replete with effective curriculum materials and teacher training, as advocated by Rehorick Report, was specifically designed to enhance the Core French program to achieve a functional level of bilingualism. It was never intended to eliminate the EFI program.
However, in order to enable all students to reach Advanced proficiency in French, a Universal Early French Immersion should start in kindergarten, as it does in other provinces and countries. Experts recognize that "when it comes to learning a second language, the younger the better", when social and cognitive development is at its most receptive. Offering this inclusive bilingual learning environment at the onset of school, will encourage children of all socio-economic and learning stages and abilities to become proficient in New Brunswick's second official language.

~Low achievement in literacy, mathematics and science.
EFI students consistently graduate with advanced proficiency, not only in French, but also in math, science, and literacy. They often excel in extra-curricular activities and academics. All students deserve this opportunity to succeed.
EFI must not be held scapegoat for poor English language literacy, math and science standings. Literacy and math skills and techniques in the early grades are totally transferable whether learning in the mother tongue or a second language. If a child struggles to learn science concepts and applications in French, s/he will have similar difficulties learning science in English. Give these students the resource and learning specialists to enable them to succeed in a universal EFI program.
To address concerns with instructional time in the mother tongue, some provinces and countries offer models whereby elementary classes, starting with kindergarten, are divided into half a day's instruction in English and the other half in French, or the school year is divided into half a year in French immersion and the other half in year in English. This allows for more equitable scheduling of English and French teachers and learning resources and specialists, and puts minimal constraint on transportation, administration or financial resources.

~Provision of more physical education, art, music and enrichment activities.
What better device or media to introduce and explore a second language, than by using Phys Ed, art, music and enrichment activities? In fact, this strategy is already employed to a degree by Early French Immersion teachers, who realize that students lose inhibition and gain more complex understanding of a new language and culture by engaging in enrichment activities of this kind. This is a great opportunity to explore these subjects, encourage personal expression, and get physically active, while learning a second language. FSL funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage could be used to support these additional French cultural strategies.

~Streaming in early grades.
No evidence supports the assertion that EFI causes streaming in early grades. To be truly inclusive, however, the department of education must provide methods and resource support which would allow all parents to register their children in early French Immersion. Students with a wide range of abilities, including those who struggle academically, deserve an opportunity to learn a second language. The EFI program needs equal access to resource teachers if struggling EFI students are not going to be shunted into the Core French program. This is the solution to streaming in Nova Scotia, PEI, and across Canada and in global second language educational systems.
Government elimination of EFI will not deter streaming. It will only postpone streaming to Middle school when many students will opt for Late French Immersion following the grade 5 Intensive French program. This program would also require resource and methods support, so why not implement this support in the early grades when it can be most effective at diagnosing and treating learning exceptionalities? This will solve the problem of class composition and will level the playing field to allow all students in New Brunswick access to proficiency in both official lanaguages.

Given that the major strength of the NB education system is the Early French Immersion (EFI) program, the so-called Cadillac, and the major weakness is the streaming of children into the Core, my recommendations deal with these two issues. To build on the strengths and deal with the weaknesses, I would suggest the following for improving the present system:

Introduce a parent support groups for parents considering putting children in EFI and for those parents in the early EFI years to help with homework. This could be run with Early French Immersion parent volunteers (a very committed bunch) and high school students in immersion.
Add French resource teachers to help keep children in EFI and more English resource teachers to help those children in Core English.
Introduce a pre-kindergarten year with an hour of French for all children and start Early French Immersion the following kindergarten year.
Extend the availability of courses offered in French in Grades 11 and 12 for EFI.
Introduce a French curriculum for Core English to be offered for an hour every day.
Use test results to see what is working and "tweak" the system to make improvements.
Develop an intensive French system which can be offered at an earlier age and to all children in the Core, perhaps grade 2, so children can then transfer into the EFI system after this experience.

There needs to be support for parents thinking about putting children in EFI and for those parents in the early years, perhaps through some sort of parent/student volunteer support group. Parents need to be educated to the benefits of EFI. They also need to be reassured that their children will not fail and that they will not fail their children by not being able to help them with homework. It is scary for parents to put a child in system when they do not know the language themselves. Parents also panic in the early years and transfer children to English when with a little help and counseling this could be avoided. If there were the resources, a homework support person would be ideal.

The introduction of pre-kindergarten, although expensive, would have numerous benefits. Children learn a second language best when exposed at as early an age as possible but they also learn other skills like reading and math. It would be an extra year to learn the alphabet and the other basics. I also understand that daycare is a problem in the province, this would address at least one year of this issue. Part of the reason the test scores are lower in this province is socio-economic. Pre-kindergarten would be a great leveler, every child would have the same advantage. One proviso, boys are already having a bit of a tough time in school. Many do not do well when they have to sit still and just listen and not learn in the way that is natural for them. Interactive communication, the ability to get up and walk around, and other boy-friendly elements should be added to the curriculum. I applaud your introduction of more gym time.

One of the problems with the current system is that children in early grades who encounter difficulties, either academic or behavioral, are inevitably shifted into the English program. The unavoidable consequence is a streaming effect, where a disproportionate fraction of students with greater needs accumulate in one program. Clearly, one way to eliminate this streaming outcome is to eliminate EFI, for by definition, streaming cannot exist if all students share the same program. But the cost of this solution is the elimination of the most effective way to acquire French language skills - and surely this is an exorbitant cost for a province with aspirations of achieving high rates of bilingualism. A superior approach would be for children to be supported in EFI by resource teachers so that children are not switched out and parents feel confident enough that there will be support to put their children in EFI in the first place.

The proposed intensive French program is a great idea but the real problem is that it comes too late. In the end, IF cannot deliver the level of French that one needs in New Brunswick. It is not compatible with Early French Immersion because you end up with two groups of children at different levels of French and so the classes from the two streams cannot be combined at any point. This is a similar problem to the one that currently exists at our local high school, Tantramar, with late immersion children being funneled in with EFI children in grade 9. This means that grade 9 is ridiculously easy for some and a challenge for others. A solution to this may be to develop an intensive French system which can be offered at an earlier age and to all children in the Core, perhaps grade 2, so children can then transfer into the EFI system after this experience.

EFI needs to be expanded so it is offered in every elementary school in New Brunswick. This is going to take more than one year and it is going to take resources. To get the best education system will take time and money. Rushing to get the job done and trying to "make do" with the resources we have now does a disservice to the children of New Brunswick.

I am currently a high-school student in the Core French program, and I find that the problem doesn't lie within finding an alternate, more French-centered system; rather, fixing the Core French program may be enough. To be more specific, I think that the program focuses much more on learning to translate specific words and phrases than it does on fluent speech of the French language. My friends agree that learning what individual French words mean in English is easier than actually learning how to speak the language fluently, and because of this I believe that, if this challenging part of learning French were to be more emphasized in the Core French program, an alternate program will most likely not be necessary.
This solution would eliminate streaming, and only one system would have to be funded.

You have my consent to post these remarks and I would ask that you please do so.

The proposed strategy which eliminates early French immersion is wrong.I support the Dicks report which blends the early with an enriched "core" environment and abandons late.

Many speak of lower levels of bilingual proficiency at high school graduation. The Department of Education hasn't developed a coherent strategy nor provided the resources at that level to sustain the second language skills acquired in the younger grades.

Examples:
1) The bilingualism certificate - Students are not widely offered this assessment and are obliged to seek it out themselves.
2)Diminished "time on task" - immersion students face less and less class time in French as they advance through high school.
3)Changes to FI graduation criteria now require 5 Gr.12 French courses for a FI diploma. Many schools don't offer that many. Even long term FI students can't do it.

The socio-economic label of "elitism" about EFI is skewed. I know parents from a broad range of economic strata who all see EFI as an avenue for their children to be ensured a more prosperous future.

Please do not make such serious and long-range strategic decisions in a vacuum fuelled by political rhetoric and posturing - our children's futures are at stake.

Children should first master reading and writing in their mother tongue so they can later experience a smooth development of the same mastery in the second language.
In 2006, the Early French Immersion students did not perform as well as the Core French students on the Grade 2 and the Grade 4 reading assessments. These EFI students were struggling to learn a second language, and this adversely affected their assessment scores. Year after year, PISA results show us that Alberta and Quebec score top marks in the country, while our only officially bilingual province doesn't do so well.
The supporters of EFI will not be swayed by evidence, however compelling, and will cling to their undying, yet clearly flawed, beliefs. I applaud Mr. Lamrock's courage to press on despite all that he has come up against. The silent majority is behind him.

I have a daughter who will be going into grade 4 of the early french immersion program and another who will hopefully be starting grade 1 this fall in EFI.
I'm very happy with my oldest daughters progress in the program and am looking foward to the same educational opportunities for my youngest daughter.
I strongly support the recommendations of the Ombudsman to delay the decision on this topic to help ensure the fall school term has the proper resources and planning required.

I support Minister Lamrock's attempt to make a more equitable system by eliminating Early FI. French Immersion is really NOT working for ALL students or ALL teachers. I still worry about late immersion, but am willing to see what happens.
My only suggestion would be to start Core French at grade 3 or 4.

Dear Mr. Lamrock:
During your tenure in office you have set goals to create a more bilingual environment for our children. We applaud you for your goal to have 70% of grade 12 students functionally bilingual by 2012. The term �functionally bilingual� is very important in our current environment. There is going to be little value in having a student achieve a level of French proficiency if your government will not then recognize it as sufficient to be employed in a bilingual province. We must have an educational system in place that can achieve Bilingualism for any student who wants it. We must step forward to create a truly bilingual province.
Early French Immersion (EFI) achieves this goal 85% of the time based on your testing. Late French Immersion only does it 40% of the time. Your goal is 70%. It is obvious that you cannot deviate far from the EFI program in order to achieve your goals. Your current proposal would suggest that you cannot meet your goals or that you must lower your goal to achieve a 70% mark. Neither scenario is an acceptable alternative. Your government must present an alternative that has the ability to meet your goals.
We have read and studied your FSL review and are very concerned that information it contains is seriously flawed and unrepresentative of current research in FSL. Your government has failed to properly test students for proficiency and are making assumptions that they are failures while having no scientific basis for it. Current research extols the benefit of Early Immersion and you
as a government have dismissed it based on the opinion of two authors. These same authors failed in their report to examine other options such as a Grade 3 entry point to EFI as presented in previous reports done by reputable research firms (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) or other pilot projects your department has undertaken on recent years i.e. Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM). These should be discussed as viable alternatives. With regards to Intensive French Programming it is understandable that you would adopt this to replace a program that has not yielded any bilingual students. However, if our goal is to produce bilingual students 70% of the time there is no justification for using it as a universal learning model. It simply is not studied enough to ensure that your goals will be met. Intensive French is not a �magic bullet� that will solve all our problems.
Research has shown that early exposure to a second language as well as increased time spent in a second language environment increases the success rate of learning that second language. Intensive French is a step away from both of these.
It is not too late to make a good decision. Listen to the experts and proceed with proven outcomes. Our children deserve it. New Brunswick deserves it. We trust that the right decision can be made.

When you are reviewing all of the facts, please look at the hard evidence surrounding the test scores of Early Immersion vs. Core Program throughout the elementary years.

There is virtually no difference between the two groups. However, there is a drastic difference between the Core Program and Late Immersion test scores.

Mr. Lamrock's previous plan of killing Early Immersion and still offering Late Immersion will only cause further streaming and continued lower test scores for the non-Late Immersion students. In addition, no student will have the opportunity to achieve Advanced Proficiency in French. Is this really better for NB?

Take a hard look at Joseph Dick's proposal. This is the only option that will reduce streaming AND still give kids the opportunity to achieve Advanced Proficiency in French and be fluently bilingual. As this province has a large Anglophone population with many Anglophone communities, many parents don't care if their child speaks French or not. Those parents just want an excellent education system and are more than happy to sacrifice a program that they are not interested in. I can see their point.

However, because the French language is a MINORITY language in this province, we need YOU, our government, to stand up and protect it. Again, please consider Dr Dick's plan.

Although I feel Minister Lamrock will not hear our pleas, I believe that elimating early French Immersion is not the answer to the gaps in elementary grades. I think the current proposal of eliminating early FI, eliminating core French in elementary school and "replacing" it with intensive French in grade 5 will not "fix" the problems in elementary classes nor improve French speaking ability.

I am a middle level FI teacher and a mother of a daughter in early Immersion and a son in late Immersion. I was glad to have both options available for my children. I have also taught core French and believe it was the lack of specific curriulum outcomes in the core French program that causes poor results in this program.

I think that you are trying to fix a broken down car by taking the tires off a car that is working.

Yes, there are problems in the elementary classes with learning gaps and an unacceptable level of students on SEPs. Fix that problem. Inclusion was implemented without all the human resources necessary.

Eliminating elementary core French and the EFI program is NOT the answer to the problem. If you fail to listen to the people, your government will have a short lifespan.

It's quite unbelievable that the only "officially" bilingual province in Canada is eliminating EFI, a program that has existed in our school system since the 70's. It is also very, very sad. I have had two children enrolled in EFI and both are extremely comfortable with the level of French understanding and ability to use the language. French is their second language. It was second nature to them as they learned it from the beginning. I think that is why it has worked. Yes, as an Anglophone parent sometimes you think is this worth it? In the end, for the sake of the child, it was definitely worth it. Why should that right be taken away from future generations of New Brunswick children? I'm not a great fan of the "Intensive" program but I don't have any first hand experience with it either. I do understand that the "Core" program needs work so perhaps the province should work on that and leave the EFI alone for those who wish to take that path. New Brunswick should be setting a standard when it comes to bilingualism, raising the bar even. The proposed changes seem incredibly backward to me. EFI elimination is simply wrong for New Brunswick.

No other province in Canada is even considering the removal or even the elimination of the Early French Immersion program because citizens across Canada understand very well that this program is the very best way that their young children can acquire the second official language of Canada and New Brunswick. Why is it that New Brunswick is the only province in Canada even considering such an idea? Other provinces in Canada are expanding their Early French Immersion programs because they understand it as a useful and effective method of learning and acquiring a second language. Ontario, in some school districts, is eliminating Late French Immersion due to poor student pronunciation in French. The later a child starts to learn a second language, the poorer their pronunciation will be. Obviously, starting to learn French in Grade 5 will produce poor results with respect to pronunciation. They have cited Early French Immersion as the best way to have a pronunciation similar to that of a native speaker of French. As Canada's only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick has a moral duty and obligation to fully support both official languages. Certainly, it seems absurd and even hypocritical to even consider eliminating Early French Immersion when it is an integral part of this province's linguistic identity. It appears undemocratic to eliminate educational choices that parents and students enjoy in all other provinces in Canada and it also seems contradictory to the bilingual essence of our province. As citizens of this province, we should have all the options that all Canadians share across the country. Early French Immersion must be reinstated and fully supported in order to be completely effective. It should never ever even be considered for elimination. Reinstate educational choice in our province and show the rest of Canada that we are, in fact, an officially bilingual province and linguistically respectful of both official languages.

As a teacher, I am thrilled that we have been asked to provide our input. Too often we are not consulted.
Having been a primary teacher for 16 years I have seen many changes in the education system. In recent memory we moved form the grade four to the grade one entry point of French Immersion. Not surprisingly that sparked much debate as well. I commend Minister Lamrock for taking on the task of fixing our education system.
As a grade one English teacher I spend time each year "catching up" students who move from Fr. Imm. to the Core program. As late as the end of April of this year, permission was granted and I was expected to prepare a student for grade two English after he spent three quarters of the year in another program. If the schools are to offer two seperate programs then they need to be treated as such. Leaving the Core program as a place where the "unsuccessful" go is not acceptable. Fr. Imm. has become a place for the minority, with smaller classes, fewer behaviour problems, and fewer academic challenges. The word "streaming" has been thrown around, unfortunately it is the face of our education system. Having had numerous special education plans on the go at one time, and seeing Fr. Imm. classes without any, and with half as many students, I think it is time to even out the balance.
As a parent, my own children have been provided with many opportunities to meet their potential in the English classroom. They have had extraordinary teachers who go above and beyond to meet not just the many needs in the classroom, but to make sure that the above average students continue to excel. As my children left kindergarten too often I heard, "You should put them in Fr. Imm. then they won't be in the same class as ??? because they won't go to Imm." For some this seemed a good enough reason to choose Fr. Imm.
I am not an expert on Second Language instruction, but I do know that I want children to be able to have a solid foundation in their first language.
Making change is never easy, and has the best decision been made? We won't know until we try it, but it has to be better than what we have now.