Government of New Brunswick

Department of Education

Home

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments appear in the language received.

I continue to be disheartened by the NB government's lack of willingness to make the changes in their education system that will benefit all NB children. I believe that everyone agrees that the status quo is not good. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is also not good either. I am without understanding as to how it got to this. It is just craziness.

As a teacher in the early immersion program for the past 11 years, I was shocked and very disappointed with the decision to eliminate the program. I have taught in grade 1, 2, 7 and 8. Did I always have the top students in the grade level? No. Have I had students with learning disabilities? Yes. Have I had special needs students? Yes. Have I ever suggested to a parent to remove their child from the Immersion program because their child was facing some challenges? No. I was and continue to be amazed at the level of proficiency of my students. I truly believe that they will be bilingual and will have better opportunities in the future. I also believe that you don't get rid of something that is a good program that works. It does need to be tweaked, especially at the high school level. However, our students perform VERY well on provincial assessments (grade 2 level)when they are faced with the same expectations as students in the core program even though this is only their SECOND year leaning a language. That's not evidence of a program that fails! I have also seen in the last 11 years a shift in the clientele in the program. Parents don't seem to have as much pressure to put their child in immersion. The English core classes also have their share of high achieving students and in my school, had smaller class sizes.
On the other hand, I have also taught Core French at the grade 2 level and the program as it was does not work. Students could barely put together a couple of words and had very little interest in learning the material that was taught, as it was being taught.

I see many flaws in the changes that are proposed by the government:
1) In the French districts (my daughter attends one of their schools), they have heterogeneous classes, what this government is looking for on the English side. They don't have the perfect formula either. They have just as many struggles.
2) I don't believe that the late immersion program will be available to all. At age 12, social groups are important and some students will not want to be seperated from their peers. Also, the program will only be offered if there are enough students to make up a class. If numbers aren't there, it most probably won't be offered.
3) Students will not be bilingual. The Intensive French program has not been used anywhere else as an replacement of immersion. When these students graduate and aren't bilingual, government jobs will not be available to them. Francophones will most likely make up the majority of the civil service.
4) Early immersion has been labeled as being "elitist". What about enrichment programs? International baccalaureate programs? Should we get rid of all of these?
5) How can we try an approach that is not proven and that will only yield results in 12 years? This is not fair to the next 12 groups of students going into the system that are denied the immersion opportunity.
6) How can we be an officially bilingual province and not offer anglophone students the opportunity to become bilingual? I have anglophone friends who cannot speak French that have had to leave the province to gain employment. In 12 years, when we potentially have students who will not be bilingual, we'll be asking ourselves, why is our youth leaving the province?

On a more personal level, I come from a family with a francophone father and an anglophone mother. I am fluently bilingual and will have 2 daughters in the French system in the Fall. I also have a niece who is in the Early Immersion program. To see her be able to converse with the family and appreciate the French culture is amazing. The Immersion program enables her to embrace BOTH of her cultures and not have to choose one over the other.

Finally, although I work every day in the education field, I don't have any answers to the current dilemma. Maybe adding more resource help in the French Immersion program is an option to make it more inclusive. Maybe offering more courses for immersion students at the high school level is an option. Maybe looking at the way we collect data related to our provincial assessment is an option (not qualifying an absent student as experiencing difficulty/failing or including our most challenged students in the data). Maybe looking at high achieving provinces such as Alberta and comparing the resources that they are putting into their Education program to what NB is putting into ours.
What is clear to me is that no one has the perfect plan right now. How can we go ahead with these changes if no one is confident with their results? Can we use that many students as guinea pigs for a plan that has never been tested? We need to take our time and do right by these students. Please delay all changes until this matter has been studied further.

I don't think any changes need to be made to the EFI program. There is nothing wrong with the program to want to change it. On another note, you cannot expect a parent (such as myself) to fill out an application form to put my child in the EFI program and then turn around and dismiss it! This 'new and improved' plan that the Minister has proposed was supposed to be implemented for kids who would NOT be affected by this change, it turn meaning kids that weren't already registered! I had already made plans to have a French tutor available for my child and other plans to help my child succeed in this program, but the government has already decided that she was probably going to fail anyway...how about you have a little faith in our younger generation, Minister!

I am all in favor of changes being made to our educational system, however I feel it would be unwise to make quick changes for this year without fully considering the outcome. My suggestion would be that, in light of New Brunswick's failing grades within the whole of Canada, something must be done - and done with a clear understanding of WHY it is being done. Our children must get a basis on their mother tongue, whether it be English or French, before being subjected to a second language.
Did anyone ever consider discussing changes with the average teacher - not the French Immersion teacher, but the teacher who faces all the other children daily - children who are the majority of our school system!!! That is where you can get the best input. They are the ones on the front line that can see the clearest. Not the parents who can only see the situation from their child's point of contact.
Take the year, poll the teachers, visit the overcrowded classrooms vs the 'specialty' classrooms. It is a very different picture and, I feel, that can be a big part of the reason for such poor results vs the rest of Canada.
Parents must get back to understanding the teacher should be more in charge of the education of their child whether it be French Immersion, being graded at the end of the year (ie. not going on just because 'it is the thing to do', or the parent requests it!),etc. Let's let the first line professionals do their job or we will be in big trouble in years to come.

The early immersion program should be kept as it produces the most fluently bilingual speakers of all FSL programs offered in NB. The program is not perfect, and as such should be improved in order to produce better learning. First of all, more help should be offered to children enrolled in early immersion (teacher assistants, literacy specialists, tutors). As it is, children who experience difficulty in early immersion are transferred to the core program simply because no help is available to them. Secondly, in order for the immersion program to remain relevant in high school, a comprehensive course selection must be offered in French. Too many students do not fulfill the requirements for immersion because the courses they need or want to take are not being taught in French.
These are two suggestions out of many that would improve the existing Immersion system. Cutting out early immersion means trumping many students' chances of becoming functionally bilingual. By improving the program, as well as improving the Core French program, we will be closer to reaching our goal of 70% bilingualism in graduates of NB.

In the first request for comments on FSL changes which focussed on the Croll and Lee report, my submission noted that much of the data underlying the report would support very different conclusions and that the authors looked to rely on anecdotal evidence and odd analyses. I suggested that before proceeding, a peer review of the document and its analysis would be a logical and necessary step.

Since then, a wide variety of materials from all sources has emerged. Yet I am dismayed to find myself in the exactly the same position as several months ago. There is far too much anecdote, assumption, and myth in this important debate, and far too little sound evidence and analysis.

This is a regrettable situation as it is not as if this situation was unknown. Key documents cited by the department in this topic include a Price Waterhouse report in 2000 that noted:
"Most frequently, the immersion program was seen to have a negative impact of the non-immersion program. Invariably, the negative impact that was suggested involved some variation of what is commonly referred to as streaming. We have very limited evidence that streaming actually occurs.."

It went on to presciently conclude:
"Whether or not streaming is actually occurring and regardless of its magnitude, we are of the belief that groups adopt strategies and tactics on the basis of this perception. The outcome of the perception is, in our view, that many act to criticize aspects of the FSL programs, sometimes in the absence of sound confirming evidence, as part of a strategy to improve conditions in non-immersion classrooms."

Price Waterhouse also found that:
"In our view the information requirements Department officials defined are the appropriate first step in addressing the streaming concerns that were expressed to us."

Then in 2002 the Scraba report was issued. Based entirely on the perceptions of people involved in the education system, the authors noted many similar views on EFI such as :
"French Immersion creates problems. Capable kids end up in Immersion."

While clearly sympathetic to the expressed views on immersion, the authors still note that:
"New Brunswick requires careful, dispassionate, thoughtful investigation prior to action."

Then in a 2006 report prepared by the UNB education department on second language learning, the authors were struck by the strongly held myths in the education sector and suggested they be directly addressed. These were:

Misconception: "Children need a "good grounding" in their first language before starting a second language."
Reality: A "good grounding" simply means "age-appropriate" development in the first language. There is no danger of a child's first language being diminished because of study of/in a second language when the first language is the majority language of the community (i.e., English).

Misconception: "Literacy should be developed first in a child's first language."
Reality: Literacy can be developed in either language. In fact, first language literacy is often enhanced when developed after second language literacy.

Misconception: "The level of French achieved through school-based programmes should provide graduates with a level of French sufficient to work in French."
Reality: The topics and domains of French used in the work world vary a great deal and are not necessarily the same domains learned in school. Language learning is a life-long process and the schools can provide a very good base on which learners can build.

Misconception: "Learners with exceptionalities should not study a second language because school is already difficult enough for them."
Reality: Effective teaching strategies used in the second language classroom mirror effective teaching strategies for learners with exceptionalities. With appropriate support, learners with special needs can learn a second language and should not be deprived of the opportunities to do so.

Misconception: "Intensive French should be the only programme available and it should replace French Immersion."
Reality: Intensive French is designed to enhance Core French programmes, which have not produced a large percentage of graduates who can function effectively in French.
Although there is no long-term research on the proficiency of graduates who have taken Intensive French, it does provide a promising springboard for improving Core French. Intensive French is not a replacement for French Immersion, however, and it would be unwise to eliminate a programme which has consistently produced graduates who meet the Quality Learning Agenda's goal.

This set of reports to the department of Education show that certain people in the field have held strong personal opinions for many years, and that for at least six years the department has been urged to get sound data in order to address the opinions. Yet all it has been able to produce is a substandard analysis that has been shown to be fundamentally flawed, and that reflects the myths it was so clearly warned against less than a year earlier.

As such I cannot support the definition of the issues nor the proposed changes that are based on the analyses contained in the Croll and Lee report.

The consultations ask the specific issue of class size and composition in non-EFI classes be addressed. This too has history. I note that the 2000 Price Waterhouse report published figures on class size:
"Class sizes are thought by many to be smaller in immersion. Overall, Departmental data suggests that there is little difference in class size between the non-immersion and immersion programs. In 1998-1999, the average Pupil Educator Ratio (PER) in grades K-8 in immersion was 24.7 versus 25.1 for non-immersion classrooms. Alternatively, the average class sizes for immersion and non-immersion in grades 11 and 12 were 22.35 and 18.67 respectively."

I understand recent figures paint a similar picture. So we are left with class composition to be addressed. Unfortunately this issue has followed a similar path as the general research surrounding this topic. While there have been many claims that the issue was supported by peer reviewed research, it was only in the last two weeks, nearly a year after this process began, that a paper, produced by the department of Education's consultant, was published in a non-referreed journal.

While a good start, this paper is not the final answer on which we can base a response. Similar to the situation when commenting on the Croll and Lee report, this late entry needs to be peer reviewed and we need to be able answer fundamental questions that this paper does not. If as it purports, that the mere presence of EFI causes streaming and therefore only its elimination can deal with it, then:
Why have New Brunswick literacy rates increased over the past ten years alongside ever larger EFI classes?
Why are the highest PISA scores in the province in areas where EFI enrolment is highest?
Why, when the French language school system has no early immersion, are its scores so much lower then the English language system which does have immersion?
Why are rural English Schools scores, which have rarely offered EFI, so much lower than urban English scores both with and without, EFI?
Why are the scores of both EFI and non-EFI students still statistically similar?
Why are the scores of later immersion students and non-EFI students so much more different than those of EFI and non-EFI?
Why did Statistics Canada's review of immersion scores on a national basis, suggest that:
". more research is needed to allow us to fully explain why students in French immersion programs tend to score higher on reading literacy than non-immersion students. That research will continue to explore the role played by socio-economic status and gender, as well as by other factors, such as home environment, the grades in which the students were enrolled in French immersion programs, and school resources." "..It may be that French immersion programs are more readily available in more affluent (for example, urban) communities, where average literacy scores tend to be higher."

Frankly all these issues are matters that should have been better addressed over the past seven years. As it now stands there is at least as much evidence to conclude that the major issues being attributed by some to EFI, are caused not by the sheer presence of the program, but by the management of it. To act to remove the program based on what is presently known, would be irresponsible.

While this debate has been mostly restricted to pedagogy, there are larger issues at stake as well. The literature shows that there are a wide range of developmental benefits to early language learning. This evidence of the benefits of early exposure is reflected in the Province's Early Childhood Development Strategy announced this month. The additional abilities to communicate, analyze, and innovate better than unilingual workers, may indeed be a contributing factor to New Brunswick's economic success over the past twenty years. A bilingual work force is often cited as a comparative advantage of the province and a reason we are attracting service industries.

The transformation of economies from primary and secondary activities to service industries, and the corresponding competition for creative talent that shift has created, is well known. I fear that we can immediately lose our advantage in this competition as the "footloose" nature of creative people allows them to locate wherever they wish. As other provinces are not contemplating removal of EFI or creating less bilingual students, these people can quickly decide to not locate here, if they feel they will deny their children the benefits of early second language exposure. As a person involved in recruitment of both private sector and civic sector personnel, this view is already emerging and will only grow.

Whatever model is chosen it must consider the larger provincial benefits that stem from EFI.

In summary, you have asked for us to provide other models. While I cannot do that, I can note that there are far too many issues outstanding to make definitive conclusions. As a result I would recommend adoption of the model in the 2006 report to the department Quality Learning In French Second Language In New Brunswick that can now be found on the department's consultation web site. It provides some immediate and defensible changes, but also lays out methods and timing to get real data on the larger issues that have been so poorly handled over the past years.

Allowing an opportunity for change that does not compromise more drastic changes in the future, while gathering real facts on causes effects and management, seems the only logical conclusion under the present circumstances.

I have been a French Immersion teacher since 1997 at the elementary school level. Over the years I have seen many students have success and agree with having children learn language early. However, I have seen many students struggle and withdraw from the program even after many interventions and parental involvement. Although I believe that children should learn as early as possible and should be stimulated in all areas of learning, I do personally feel that too many kids have not fulfilled their full potential in their literacy and Math skills because of their involvement in French Immersion.
The other problem in our Education system which unfortunately can be attributed to the French Immerison and English division is the classroom composition and classroom dynamics of English classes as compared to Immerion classes. Two years ago, I began teaching physical education to all 400 students in our ELementary school. At the time, I had only taught in a school with French Immersion only and I taught Grade 3 Immersion. I was shocked by the drastic difference in classes even in something non-academic such as following directions and learning physical skills and games. For example, I would teach a Grade 2 French Immersion class a lesson in Basketball skills for 30 minutes and then teach the English Grade 2 class immediatly following the other class and the difference was sever. Most times I could not get through the entire lesson because of attention, comprehension of directions, disputes etc. It quickly became necessary for me to "adapt" my instruction to meet everyone's needs. I felt that I simply did not have enough experience with these types of classes as an Immersion teacher and felt very bad for the classes that sometimes missed out on some opportunities because of behaviour. I might add that the English classes had great kids with different characters and learning styles and I really liked them and enjoyed being around them. They were funny, interesting and very active. Just the kind of kids that I like and was like as a young kid. It is just so hard to teach them because there are so many of them in one class.
I have 2 children of my own. My son **** is 6 years old and just completed Kindergarten at my school. He has Down syndrome. My daughter is 3 1/2 years old. Over the years I always wanted my children to become bilingual but chose to speak to them in English only so that they could be eligilbe for the French Immersion classes. ****'s Down syndrome did not affect that vision for my children. I was determined that we would enrich his life as much as possible to learn as much as possible and after seeing the English classroom dynamics at my school I was going to enroll him into French Immersion just to have him in the classes that I thought would be a better learning environment for him. I was going to make this decision even though that deep down inside I knew it was going to affect his literacy and numeracy skills in English but I was willing to make the sacrifice at the expense just to have him with good role models and less challenged teachers since **** himself would be a challenge for them.
Initially when the Minister of Education announced his decision to eliminate the Grade 1 French Immersion in NB, I was in shock and devastated. All of these years (actually only 5) I have prepared **** to be bilingual. I denied him the benefit of being raised in a bilingual home and I was in tears. I did not believe that he would only learn French in Grade 5. It did not fit into my beliefs as a trained French Immersion teacher. As the weeks went on and I attended information sessions, my views gradually changed. I attended the Intensive French information session for teachers only and I was convinced that this method, although a little late, would allow our kids to develop a strong base in their other skills. When I say strong, I don't mean adequate in the French Immersion program, I mean to the full potential of every student while still allowing every kid to benefit from Second Language Instruction.
Over the past 10 years I have witnesses parents make the decision to place their kids in FI if they had a good year in Kindergarten. Unfortunately the kids who struggled rarely chose Immersion thus leanding to our problem. This year, the teachers at our school were able to create 3 well balanced grade 1 classes based on behaviour, special needs, learning styles and personalities. Not academic! I was getting very excited about the whole idea. You see my **** that I was so worried about turned out to have the best education possible in Kindergarten. He had a super skilled teacher! He had a wonderful resource team and fabulous TAs that followed inclusionary practices to the highest level possible. Our **** turned out to end his year in Kindergarten in Instructioal Level D in Reading and was average in all of his skills in other areas and was only on an accomodated Speial Educaiton Plan. He did this by having strong students in his classs who were role models for him as well as having children with behavior difficulties who were playmates for him as well. It was a great balance and combined which the great teaching and home support he reached his full potential in my opinion for the Kindergraten year.
I am in full support of the Minister's decision to eliminate the Early Immersion program. I feel that his new proposal will help all kids in NB reach there full potential not just the kids who are in the Immesion program. I do suggest that the intensive french be in Grade 4 just to have it earlier but still after the K-2 years.
After the court decision that the old Grade 1 Immersion program had to be reinstated we have made the decision to place **** in Grade 1 English. This is the ironic part. Most parents placed kids who were successful in Kindergarten in French Immersion. For us, we placed him in Grade 1 English because he was so successful! We want to see how much potential he has and want to work as hard as possible to foster that. I believe that the Intensive French will work for him and my daughter and for all others in NB. Equal education for all!

Dear Minister of Education,

I am currently enrolled in early French immersion. A lot of kids in my class do not have French speaking parents. If they weren't in Early French Immersion they would not learn French. New Brunswick is a bilingual province. To succeed in New Brunswick you need to be able to speak French and English. I sincerely wish you think about this before you do this. Canceling French immersion in New Brunswick is like canceling Spanish in Spain.

Dear Minister Lamrock:

Here is the letter I wrote to you in April of this year which contain my thoughts on possible alternatives. I will submit for your consideration again.

April 6, 2008

Dear Minister Kelly Lamrock:

After hearing your most recent complaint this morning on Michael Enright's CBC Radio program, "The Sunday Edition," that no one has given you any alternatives to your current plan to eliminate the Early French Immersion (EFI) program in all of New Brunswick. I thought I'd give you mine.

It is simply this:

1. Replace the Core French program with the Intensive French Program in all of New Brunswick's Anglophone School District elementary schools starting in September 2008. This program has been tested and has increased the number of students enrolling in late immersion in other provinces such as Newfoundland. In New Brunswick teachers were not trained to teach this program until recently. Some visionary had the forethought to say, "We need to explore this opportunity to help our kids. But let's make sure it works first. Let's start a pilot and train our people." We need to build on the pilot program that has taken many years to prove it could work. We need to build on the body of knowledge that teachers have obtained after training to deliver this program and the experience they have acquired from teaching our kids over the years.

2. Immediately begin a two-part approach to making EFI accessible to 100% of New Brunswick's elementary school children.
i) Train bilingual Methods & Resource (M&R) Teachers, bilingual Literacy Specialists and bilingual Teacher's Assistants (TA's) for the EFI program
ii) Recruit bilingual Methods & Resource (M&R) Teachers, bilingual Literacy Specialists and bilingual Teacher's Assistants (TA's) for the EFI program.
Despite your claim that these people do not exist in the world. they do exist. They are working in the English Core system in the 40% of schools that have EFI, they work in the other 60% of schools that do not have EFI programs, they work in the French School District and they work in other provinces. We should train current M&R teachers, literacy specialists and TA's who need their French skills improved. We should work with the Bachelor of Education programs to provide funding for these roles. We should work with our community colleges to improve the qualifications and pay for our TA's. We should recruit from other provinces. We should consider paying more for this skill set than for a similar professional who speaks only English. Many EFI teachers would return home to New Brunswick or to their Atlantic Canadian roots if it made professional and financial sense for them to do so. It may help encourage existing resources upgrade their French language skills. We need to get fill this need for bilingual resources in our schools. This will help our children become literate and learn Math, Science, Art, Music and Physical Education in the language of their choice regardless of their ability. New Brunswick parents will then have the real choice of whether to enroll their children in the EFI program or wait until grade 5 to take the mandatory intensive French program. This will make our elementary classrooms inclusive regardless of language of instruction.

3. Continue to train and hire Methods & Resource Teachers, Literacy Specialists and Teacher's Assistants for the 60% of New Brunswick elementary schools where there is no EFI program and for the Enriched Core French students.

Minister Lamrock, you have made a decision that did not take much political courage at all. You have made a politically convenient decision to appease the New Brunswick Teachers' Federation now that their contracts are up for negotiation. The Federation's majority of elementary Core Program teachers have had enough of trying to succeed when they have been set-up to fail due to past governments' failure (and now your government's failure) to address the need for making EFI accessible to everyone. I think the union and its members have a fair complaint that the Core program's classroom composition is unacceptable.

Your "quick and easy" decision to address the streaming problem comes with a very high price. Our elementary students will not receive the best education we have to offer. the EFI program. We need to offer our best educational opportunities to 100% of our children in the early years.

You have given up on trying to teach all elementary students French as a second language at an early age regardless of their ability. You are saying the problem is too big. You are saying we just can't do it. You are saying if the alternatives cannot solve the problem of streaming by September 2008 it is an alternative not worth considering.. even if it is the best approach for our students and our province.

Finally, I would like to know how the elementary students in the 60% of New Brunswick's elementary schools that do not offer EFI today are performing in the core subjects of Math, Science, and Literacy. They have not been streamed. According to your current plan they should be doing better then the students who are in the schools where there is streaming. The people of New Brunswick need to know this information.

I heard you state on the CBC Townhall from Moncton, NB, that money had nothing to do with the decision to eliminate EFI and I am relieved to hear this. When your government is currently purchasing a new airplane at a price of four million dollars and giving yourselves a pay raise. I am very glad to hear that we have lots of money to improve our educational system.

I want my children and all children who live in New Brunswick to have access to the best education system in the world.

We share that goal.

However, we are not there today and we will not be there tomorrow with your current plan.

I look forward to your response.

I am a parent with a 16-year old daughter going into grade 11 french immersion program. She started early immersion in grade 1. It has been very successful for us. She can speak, read & write french very fluently and I will be very proud to see her graduate with her certificate in french immersion. She often uses her skills in french at her part-time job and has had numerous french-speaking customers tell her that she speaks french very well. Therefore, that should tell you the system is working just fine. I also have a 4-year old that will be starting kindergarten next year. I was very disappointed to hear the immersion program was changing for her. If it has worked for her older sister, you should give it a chance to work for her too. In conclusion, I do not believe the problems lie in the earlier grades in the french immersion program, but at the high school level where there is a shortage of french immersion teachers to teach all the classes our immersion students require. That is where the focus should be, fix that problem. Do not try to fix a problem that doesn't exist to begin with. Thank you.

I am writing to give my support to our minister. As a public educator for 38 years I am pleased this is being addressed. I am also pleased with late immersion and the readjustment of French second language. We have a grandaughter in late immersion at Devon Middle School in Fredericton having completed intensive French in fifth grade at Alexander Gibson School .She is very happy. I am also pleased to see emphasis on Literacy in Elementary and return of Phys. ed. and Music. Now English parents really do have a choice. When children reach grade 6 the teacher, child and parent can determine if this is the best course for the child .When Early immersion is chosen there are times when the child has difficulty coping with 2 languages and feel it is failure to return to an English.Coincidentally we have a grandson entering English core grade 6 in at Devon Middle this fall.Keep up the good work.

There are many inconsistencies in the arguments frequently cited in support of eliminating EFI:

1. EFI produces "streaming". -- It is true that EFI classes have fewer children with SEPs. However , this is more likely a reflection of the fact that EFI programs have not been properly resourced/supported thus forcing parents of children with SEPs to choose the core program. The real cause of this early "streaming" is resource allocation. Further, this argument completely ignores the "streaming" produced by LFI. How many kids with proven learning difficulties are enrolled in LFI? Why has the government not provided any data on this issue?
2. EFI "streaming" puts kids in the core program at a disadvantage. -- If this is the case, why does the core program consistently perform so poorly across the province including the areas where EFI is not even offered?
3. Kids need to get a solid grounding in English first. - Although this statement seems logical, it is simply not supported by research. In fact, the research repeatedly shows that children who are exposed to a second language early ultimately do better in both languages.
4. Adding more resources and support to EFI is not possible, as the qualified people do not exist. - How can this possibly be the case in a province where 30% of the population is francophone? Are we to believe that the French school districts have no resource and methods teachers, teaching assistants, or literacy support teachers?
5. EFI is somehow a barrier to the greater good of allowing all students a reasonable opportunity of acquiring French proficiency. - Even the Minister of Education admits that EFI is the MOST effective way to learn French and produces the highest proficiency. If this program is working well for 20% of the students overall (50% in some school districts like Moncton) then why not simply improve the FSL program for the remaining students possibly with intensive French for the core students while maintaining EFI and improving on its weaknesses (resources/support).
6. Maintaining EFI is somehow unfair, as it is not offered in all schools/to all students. - Inconsistent levels of service are true of many government services, which often are reduced in areas of lower population. If this is a problem the current government would like to address, then commit to offer EFI to all NB students.
7. Intensive French will encourage more students to enrol in LFI. - True, but this has also been proven to be the case when French was taught to kindergarten students in Fredericton and the school subsequently had a marked increase in demand for EFI.
8. The government's current proposal is the only viable alternative. - First, many recognised language experts have opposed the elimination of EFI and have proposed alternatives that will achieve the desired goals while maintaining educational choice. The originators of intensive French in NFLD are on record that their program was never intended as a replacement for EFI but instead was designed to improve on core French. This program has been tested on students who have completed four years of core French and yet the government is proposing to implement it in a different setting by eliminating all French instruction in grades 1-4.

I think that most New Brunswickers would agree that there are problems with the current education programs. I hope the Minister of Education will reconsider his misguided and ill advised attempt at a "one size fits all" solution. Instead, let's fix the root causes of the identified issues while maintaining educational choice for parents and students. There is an opportunity to maintain, fix and strengthen both the EFI and core programs. The success of one does not depend on the elimination of the other. If it did, why has this not been an issue in any of the other provinces or territories? They all offer EFI.

I have a son who will be affected by the decision as he is going into Grade 1 and I had enrolled him in the FI program.
I am saddened that he may not be able to speak french when he is still young and wants so badly to learn. My fear is that he will not want to go into late FI and just want to follow his buddies. I believe in teaching children young when they are most receptive.
I do not have a solution but it seems the problem is that we want our FI children to be more fluent in their mother tongue and we want english program children to learn more french. Can we not simply incorporate more english into the FI daily program and more french into the english program? I know it is not that simple but I did want to voice my opinion once again.
The media has made this out to be quite a debate and topic of discussion for almost everyone. The media has also made it out to be that if you didn't voice your opinion then you didn't care. This is simply not the case. I know there are many people who feel the same as I do. Not having the answers but knowing that the elimination of early french immersion is NOT the answer and having the english program children being forced to take intensive french is NOT the answer.
Please put your decision on hold until all the possibilities are exhausted and hashed over. The decision was made too quickly and we the people deserve the time and study dedicated to finding the solution.

I participated in this consultation process earlier, submitting comments about the substantive issues under discussion. But as the consulation draws to a close, I would now add a series of comments relating to the process itself. The most important point to underline is one that others have made on the consultation website and in the media: that the timing of the process has severely limited the possible outcomes. If a decision must be made for September 2008, it can either be to maintain the current system or to implement the changes proposed by the Minister. It is hard to believe there is adequate time to formulate and implement any alternative reform proposal. In light of this, the only fair and reasonable decision is to delay any changes for a year so that there is a genuine possibility of exploring other options.

In addition to this basic point, there are a number of additional shortcomings in the process that have not received as much attention. Many of these would have had the effect of reducing the level of public participation in the consultation and must be taken into account in assessing the results. I would anticipate that the Minister will refer to the level of participation - as measured by the number of written comments received and the number of attendees at the Open Houses - as part of the rationalization for whatever decision he announces on August 5th. If most of the comments received are critical of the proposed changes, yet the number of participants is relatively low, it will be all too easy for the Minister to characterize participants as a 'vocal minority' whose views are not reflective of the 'silent majority.' In anticipation of this sort of rhetoric, it is important to spell out important limitations of this consultation process that have almost certainly served to reduce levels of public participation.

1. There is first the matter of the low turnout at the open houses. Since these were not meetings where people could express opinions to those in charge (i.e. the Education Minister), but rather information sessions with administrative staff only, it is hardly surprising that turnout was low. Many people probably felt they knew all they needed to given the extraordinary level of attention to this issue in the media and the availability of relevant documents through the consultation website and elsewhere. If public meetings designed to solicit public input had been held - the norm in most public consultations - there would undoubtedly have been much higher turnout. A very large crowd (I believe it was in the hundreds) showed up for a forum organized by CBC in Moncton shortly after the decision to eliminate French immersion was first announced. This was a very high level of turnout for such an event (public consulation meetings often attract only a handful of participants) and offers a much better sense of the breadth and depth of public engagement with the FSL issue than does the number of attendees at the open house sessions. We can only assume it was a strategic decision on the part of the Minister not to hold any such public meetings to hear the views of New Brunswickers in person.

2. There is secondly the matter of the number of written submissions received. The Minister almost certainly limited the number of submissions by indicating at the outset that he only wanted to hear constructive ideas for reform, not support for the status quo. Anyone who simply wanted to indicate support for the current system - a reasonable position to take - was effectively told not to bother providing their views.

The fact that comments were available to read on the website soon after being submitted would also serve to reduce the number of submissions. Many people reading these comments would see their viewpoint already articulated by someone else and therefore not bother making what might seem like a redundant submission. In a process where the comments of others are not available to read, there would be greater reiteration of themes from multiple participants and consequently a greater number of submissions overall.

Those who did read the comments of others but chose not to submit one themselves should, however, be counted as engaged participants. They are the equivalent of those who attend a public meeting, but do not step up to the microphone to speak - instead they just listen and reflect on the commentary offered by others. In the case of a web-based consultation, the best way to measure this more passive form of participation is through the amount of 'traffic' on the website - the number of hits on the site, and in particular the number of hits in the comments section of the site. The Minister should make such information available after the consultation is complete and not rely solely on the number of written submissions to gauge the level of public involvement.

3. A third issue hindering public participation in this process is the exclusive use of written formats for providing opinions - either written comments on the website or written submissions by mail. Those without sufficient literacy skills to write a formal submission, a significant percentage of the New Brunswick population, have effectively been barred from this entire process (a form of segregation perhaps?). This is part of the reason why public meetings where people can express their views orally must always be part of any comprehensive consulation process. It is ironic that the Minister would overlook this basic point, given his express objective of improving literacy levels in the province.

The shortcomings noted above should be acknowledged as part of whatever response the Minister formulates after this consultation process is complete and should be avoided in subsequent efforts to consult with New Brunswickers about the future of their education system.

We should give our children every opportunity to challenges themselves to learn. All English children should be immersed in French in kindergarten,thus allowing everyone the same opportunity to thrive in both of our official languages. Children who are not thriving,could opt out of immersion for grade 1, content that as an individual their intellectual needs were not met in the immersion program. We have four children, the oldest is entering grade 11 in the English program, an honors student,but never challenged, the second child is entering grade 10 of the early French immersion program, also an honors student, very challenged and well rewarded with fluency in both French and English. Our third child has just completed a wonderful year in grade 1 early French immersion .Our fourth child starts kindergarten in September 2008, please leave the Early French immersion program in place, so that he too can enjoy being bilingual in our officially bilingual province. As parents we feel we failed our first child by not enrolling him in the early French immersion program. As a government encourage strong bilingual learners by continuing the Early French Immersion curriculum in New Brunswick.

Thank you for providing us a Public opportunity to voice our opinions and provide suggestions for French Second Language instruction in Province of New Brunswick. I have a few different comments to make so I consolidated them into this one submission.

Before suggesting an alternative to how French is taught in NB, I wish to comment on a few items.
The Department of Education must review the methods by which they calculate and publish statistics to support decisions. At the public consultation session, I was told that the current percentages include children on Special Education Programs (SEP). This is not done in many other provinces (to which we are compared). Inclusion is part of the New Brunswick school system but only at the Open House held in my community did I learn that some children who are on SEPs are given an automatic score of 0 which lowers the score for all of the province. Perhaps, in addition to reviewing why these children are not counted, the department release sets of numbers: one for all children in the program, one that is only for SEPs children and one that is only for those that are not on a SEP. That way realistic comparisons can be made between provinces.

Another error in public information occurred at the public consultation sessions held in each District where we were shown the percentage of children reaching proficiency levels in their program. These were the first numbers used in the discussions with anyone who walked in door and to prove that the current system for French Second Language does not work. These numbers were incorrect representations of the truth and I would like the Department of Education to review the methods by which they provide their statistics. The numbers shown to us were those that reached proficiency in their program and they cannot be used for discussion with the public without applying weighting as all programs do not have the same amount of students in them (Core, EFI and LFI). For example, just over 40% of the EFI and LFI children reach the same proficiency level of Advanced. There are more children in EFI than LFI in New Brunswick so these percentages need to be adjusted to reflect the actual (and higher) number reaching proficiency. If that is added to the equation, one would see that more EFI children reach proficiency than LFI as there are more in the EFI program. Additionally, those that are in EFI are a better representation of the population in our province as the majority of those in the program were placed there by their parents (unlike those in LFI who chose to be in the program). We must have confidence in the numbers that you are using to make your case. Please make sure that they are calculated and represented properly.

In light of these miscalculations (SEP students included in provincial scores and the inaccurate numbers of proficiency) I strongly urge that the review period be extended in order to properly inform the citizens of this province with accurate statistics to support the cause of changing french second language instruction. This may lead to a different program and one that can be implemented with success as it will be based upon truth. Additionally, six weeks of consultation and one week to review all material is not sufficient in my opinion. Teachers and schools need to be prepared to teach our young children and also need to start a year off without additional pressures.
In addition to reviewing all aspects of the education system (literacy, numeracy physical education art etc.), I also believe that this is also the time for the New Brunswick government to seriously review what Bilingual means in this province. There are three levels of proficiency that we are concerned with. Advanced (one level below Superior), Intermediate Plus and Intermediate. Right now, Early Immersion has a proficiency goal of Advanced, with over 40% of the students reaching it. I learned that under the proposed program, (grade 5 intensive french+late immersion), the goal is to have 70% of the population graduating from an Anglophone program with a proficiency of Intermediate. I assume some will have a higher proficiency but most of the remaining 30% will have a lower proficiency. I was also told by Government department representatives at the Open House that the employers (specifically the Government of New Brunswick) look for Intermediate Plus applicants as their ability to be trained to reach a higher proficiency exists. I was told that those with Intermediate proficiency do not have an adequate foundation to reach the higher proficiency without expensive training. If the major employer of bilingual people is the Government, where are they going to find adequate employees? They will have to source them from francophone communities which will mean that those communities will lose more and more residents to the South. It will also mean that all Anglophone students under the new program and coming out of the system 7 years from now may not be marketable in New Brunswick.

After thinking over all the possiblities, we suggest that Government still consider their proposed program, but offer it at a much younger age and incorporate new methods of instruction. New methods, such as AIM which was piloted in my children's school, have been very successful and I don't know why these haven't been shared with the rest of the children in this province.
If we truly want proficient children who are comfortable with French, we must consider the following: French instruction for 50% of the time in grades Kindergarten and Grade 1. By then, parents are confident that their child had had enough exposure to make an informed decision. At that time they can either enrol their Grade 2 child in EFI (80% French, 20% English) or an English based program (20% French and 80% English) which would continue until Grade 5. In Grade 6 the levels would be 70% French and 30% English (for EFI) and 70% English and 30% French for the English program. The levels would remain the same until graduation (Grade 12) for the English program while that for the EFI child, the level would decrease to 50% English and 50% French for Grades 10 to 12. The Late Immersion program would no longer be offered and these resources would be shifted to teach and support the new program. Additionally, no program would offer math and science instruction in French. This would ensure that numeracy is taught in the mother tongue. It is hard enough to understand a word problem, let alone confuse it with another language.

If the program introduced by the government earlier this year is implemented, I will be disappointed. I will have to convince my child who is entering puberty and the defiant stage of life to take late immersion and do a really good job at it so he can exceed the program's expectations and find a job in this province when he is older. I also know that the school system today is NOT ready to successfully implement the proposed solution in September 2009. In addition to having teachers (the front line) are not ready, the program is not ready. The program is being "sold" as one that can succeed because a child will have some exposure to the language outside of the classroom. For example, each district will be responsible for providing co-curricular activities for French exposure. My child in won't be guaranteed the same exposure as a child in another district because it is up to the district to come up with opportunities and that is just irresponsible education with no accountability as there is no regulation. If waiting means doing it right that I implore that you consider delaying your implementation schedule by one year. I will be more confident in your reasons for implementation if you take your time.
If the New Brunswick Government wishes this province to remain a bilingual province, it must consider that in all of its education decisions. We must educate our children to meet the definition of bilingualism. I acknowledge that the current system is not working, but there are parts that are succeeding and that is Early French Immersion. If bilingualism is supposed to trump literacy, numeracy and other "low" scores, we cannot do it at the expense of the children who exceed the proficiency that the government is looking for. EFI exists in other provinces and it is successful. The question is why does it succeed elsewhere and what can New Brunswick implement. This needs to be examined and shared with the public. We need to find out and 6 weeks is not enough time. These consultations must form part of your decision making process and in order to consider them seriously, you must not review the submissions quickly (and lightly).
In closing, I hope that the methods by which you validated your proposed program, and decided to implement it not repeated in the future by your department or by any other New Brunswick Government department.
Our family came back to New Brunswick with the hopes of staying and making our life here. So far we haven't had a reason to leave, but we don't want our children to be forced to go elsewhere to make their lives. The education system in this province must provide our children the tools they need so that when they are older, they can "Be employed in this place", "Raise a family in this place", "Be Happy in this place" and "Stay in this place".

Thank you.

Mr. Minister,

I am writing in response to your government's proposed changes to the French Second Language (FSL) program. While I do not currently have any children in the public school system I recognize the importance of education in building a stronger and more self-sufficient New Brunswick. I do not agree with your government's proposed changes and firmly believe that implementation of the changes as outlined will be detrimental to our province's education system, leading to weaker academic performance at all levels. Secondly, I am appalled by your government's treatment of this important decision. Education is entirely rooted in the public domain, and as such adequate consultation and engagement with the public must be maintained. In my opinion and those of many others, proper consultation was not granted for this decision. It appears that you and your government placed political interests ahead of the future of our province - our current and future students.

As a graduate of the Early French Immersion program, I can personally attest to both the quality and importance of this program. The EFI program provided me with the fundamentals for success in both education and professional life. After graduation from the program, I continued my education at UNB completing an undergraduate degree in Engineering, and have worked as a business professional in the NB technology industry for the past nine years. I attribute a large part of my success to the skills and knowledge I acquired through the EFI program.

In your discussion paper you state "...kids in Immersion significantly outperform those in the Core Program..." I'm concerned that in implementing the proposed changes the EFI program will be sacrificed to improve performance in other areas, in effect lowering the total system to the lowest common denominator. I firmly believe that the EFI program is successful in its current form and should remain a valid option for children entering Grade 1. I do understand the need for reforms in the Core stream, but do not agree with sacrificing the EFI program as a means of improving the total system. Instead, I would propose that the EFI program remain as is while the suggested changes are introduced to the late Immersion and Core streams.

Additionally, I do not believe that you should proceed with any changes for the 2008-09 academic year. I do not feel that proper time has been granted for proper public debate and consultation for the decision process and most importantly for the implementation of the changes. Structural and program changes of this magnitude are monumental and should not be rushed to satisfy a political timeline or objective. While it is critical that we advance our education system we should not proceed until proper due diligence has been completed and general consensus has been formed.

As Mr. Lamrock is no doubt aware, the Education system in Quebec recently moved ESL instruction to start in grade one instead of grade four. Many francophone families are sending their children to private schools to learn English, even sending them to primary school in the United States. The Anglophone LBPearson school board is almost 100% immersion students. Parents know that they want their children to be bilingual, and that earlier is better, immersion is better, and that they will go to great lengths to make sure that their children have the opportunity to learn two languages. More than 10,000 anglophone children are enroled in the Francophone school system in Quebec. The announcement that New Brunswick had eliminated Early immersion was a chilling message that said that bilingualism is a waste of time. It was badly received in Quebec and elsewhere. As a parent of four children who attended English, French and Immersion schools, I can only see this decision as an error in judgement. Replacing Early Immersion with a program that will not allow students to study or work in French is an error in judgement. Mr. Lamrock, you must change your mind on this issue.