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.

It appears that French immersion has become the latest scapegoat for every failure in our school system.I do not support Mr. Lamrock's decision to eliminate EFI.I have taught in the early and late immersion programmes in both Ontario and New Brunswick, from kindergarten to Grade 8. Young children soak up a second language almost effortlessly because they are learning in the context of games, stories, music, puppets, and natural play. The emphasis needs to be in these early years because children become more self-conscious and less spontaneous as they get older. Resource help has not been provided for FI students so parents feel they have no option but to pull them from the programme if they have any difficulties. This gives the impression that it is "elitist" and only meant for the those who are academically strong. It has also served to overload our English classes and create the present imbalance. Equal opportunity for all children to learn French means equal access to resource help, in both languages. FI teachers will get the training if they know they will be able to use it.

It is my understanding that a decision is imminent regarding the future of Core French in New Brunswick.

As a Core French educator since 1980, with extensive experience in many methodologies and programs, I would implore you to reconsider your position in the elimination of Core French as it stands to be replaced exclusively by Intensive French starting in Grade Five.

As educators, we do agree that things need to be improved in Core French; however, the total elimination of Core French is not the answer. There are alternatives and choices.

In 1999, I had the privilege and experience of being the first teacher anywhere to pilot a revolutionary Core French program, the AIM or Accelerative Integrated Method. From my very first observation of a grade two Core French class of Wendy Maxwell, author/creator of the AIM, I knew that I was witnessing something very special. The children were conversing exclusively in French not only with Ms. Maxwell, but also with each other. They were writing in complete thought responses. Children were active and engaged, working with each other and with Ms. Maxwell, exclusively in the target language. Never before had I experienced such an immersion-like setting within a Core French classroom. From there on, I committed myself to learn about the AIM, the research behind it, the sound pedagogy, and in September 1999, became the first teacher anywhere to pilot the AIM in my grade one Core French classes. I have never looked back.

When the AIM is used correctly in a Core French classroom, students are able to achieve levels of fluency previously unattainable. Ministry expectations are constantly exceeded after just the first year of implementation. Students' attitudes towards French are positive, as it has now become an active, engaging and "fun" class! What more could a French teacher ask for? The reason for the increasing popularity of the AIM amongst Core French teachers is because it works, regardless of what a few studies are showing!

As an AIM teacher trainer and consultant, as well as educator, my question during my workshops to teachers is: "What do you want your students to be able to do ?" The answer is always: ".speak only in French and have a positive attitude.". As a Core French educator, I will deliver the best program possible to my students so that they may become confident speakers, readers and writers. With the AIM, I am finally able to achieve this with my students.

Minister Lamrock, I truly hope that you will look at some other alternatives for NB's anglophone school system other than the one that you have currently proposed. There are too many flaws on the data that you said you based your decision on, but with the Ombudsman report it was clear that you had made your decision even before the Croll/Lee report was finished. I am not sure why you would want to eliminate the most effective program proven to produce the most proficient bilingual speakers. I do understand that our core program does need to be revamped. By removing all French instruction until grade 5 certainly seems like moving backwards especially in the only bilingual province. I would like to see a better core program and starting in kindergarten. I think you should look at the AIM learning method, as suggested by Professors Dicks and Kristmanson. As you once said we don't keep kids from learning math and science so why would we keep language learning from our children. If we need more phys ed, especially from k-2 then increase the school day - it is too short anyway.
For the EFI program, I truly like the grade 1 entry, as it gives our children a year to get their feet wet in school before jumping into EFI. I would gladly accept an entry point in kindergarten or grade 2, and grade 3 would even be acceptable, though that is truly middle immersion. Grade 6 with Intensive French in grade 5 is too late. There will be very few children even entering the program and then you will definitely have a program that is only for a small percentage of our population. LFI is a much more difficult program (I know from experience) and I think the resources that you say will be available would better serve to make EFI more inclusive to those experiencing difficulties. After your decision in March, when you said that the "dumb" kids were being left behind in the English program, I asked my children if the Core kids or the EFI kids were smarter. The answer was simple - "I don't know, we're not allowed to discuss marks". My children don't think they are better than those kids, and neither do I. I think that we need to do many things in the NB education system.
1st - Make the test scores more accurate. I know that we do need to improve, but because the testing counts children that haven't even written the test, or are not at that level of testing our results are truly inaccurate.
2nd - If children do not learn the material, they should not be put up to the next grade. There is obviously a problem, and by just pushing them through causes many more problems than it solves.
3rd - Put resources into the EFI program - make it accessible for everybody.
4th - Stop the excessive fundraising!! Provide our schools with enough money so that class time is not lost to pushing our kids to raise money so they can win prizes.
5th - Intergrate the classes for gym, art, English, and music. If there are 2 grade 1 classes then have 2 of those subjects at the same time and mix the Core and the EFI classes. That way they will learn together and will not be so "segregated".
6th - Cut the PD days, or have them before the kids start school in September. There are too many of them and our kids are not getting enough days of instruction.
7th - Make proficiency exams mandatory and do them at the end of grade 8, or even grade 10. This will give a better idea of how well our kids are doing.
8th - Provide decent French courses in the High Schools so that the FI students will want to continue their education in French.
Please don't sacrifice EFI. It is a valuable program and does not need to be cut to save the Core Program.

I am participating in this debate because I feel very strongly that our present government in NB and the DOE is heading down the wrong path with regards to FSL, specifically its intention to eliminate EFI. I would be the first to agree that radical changes need to be made to our education system in this province. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am deeply distressed with the quality of education offered here. Were I to do it again, I would home-school my children.

Had I known what I know now of the school system, upon retiring from the military 10 years ago, we would never have chosen this province to raise our children. If EFI had not been offered, we would never have even considered settling here. If our children were younger, we would leave...correction, we would have left years ago.

This said, I am horrified with the rapidity of the so-called public consultation and the implementation of the changes proposed. The obvious manipulation of public opinion, the blatant use of inflammatory rhetoric, the audacity and arrogance of the Minister and his lack of willingness to consider academic and linguistic expertise has under-mined any hope for a mutually trusting collaboration. True, Lamrock appears to be listening now...under duress. Time will tell just how far he is prepared to back-track. A large portion of the NB population now deeply distrusts this government. Any compromise put forward by them will be under enormous scrutiny.

This is not the first time this debate has reared its ugly head in New Brunswick. I have been quite vocal previously. This time I have found that the pedagogical and linguistic "experts" have been very active, convincing and have used rational, data-based evidence to back up their arguments. I tend to shy away from the anecdotal because it is so subjective. I'll break that rule here.

For the last three years I have been assisting numerous children enrolled in the EFI program. These children have all experienced challenges adjusting to the program and their parents have hired me to assist them individually. The most salient point I can stress is that not even once has the language of instruction been the stumbling-block for these children. I do an extensive diagnostic evaluation and upgrade it as they progress. The causes for their struggles are issues such as attention deficits, motivation, dyslexia, etc. Generally speaking, it requires minimal intervention on my part to help them focus, choose motivating activities to help them catch up on missed learning opportunities and reintegrate them into the EFI system...something which could be achieved efficiently, given the proper resources available within the program. I should not be necessary!

I see you coming: Oh, but the parents who hire you are of a socio-economic class willing to invest X# of $ per hour to hire you, therefore the system is "elitist". Sorry, but I also have hours and hours of expertise volunteering in my children's classrooms, assisting in teaching everything from basic literacy skills to how to write a speech or an essay. I honestly cannot say that I had significantly more success with children of any specific socio-economic grouping. More pivotal was my ability to identify the challenges they were facing, the rapport I managed to establish with each child and their willingness to learn. Again, given the resources, within the EFI program, anything I have managed to accomplish with a select few could become widespread. Critical to the whole equation is that the resources have not been available in French to retain the struggling students within the EFI program.

I take serious issue with the term "segregation" to describe the inequity which does exist between the two programs. Without a doubt, streaming has resulted from the lop-sided approach to resource attribution. This was never an inevitable result of the two programs. It is due to the inadequate job done to educate parents and to promote EFI and the insufficient allocation of resources which have resulted in this so-called "segregation". To label it as such shifts the blame and effectively washes the DOE 's hands of any responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. Some us are able to see through this subterfuge. We are not as gullible an electorate as you would like to believe.

Please take sufficient time to consider all options and discuss with your electorate what avenues need be discovered. Yes, think outside of the box, but let us inside too.

I am a teacher in Bathurst and I have two daughters who were on the immersion program. I was totally in favour of my daughters learning french but not necessarily in the way it was delivered. The immersion program in Bathurst is a prime example where immersion is a well known way to stream your child. I personally did not want my girls to have 80% of their day in French but I did not see the core program as an option. I was nervous about them learning math and science in French. Most parents boast about how smart their children are in the elementary grades but then are taken aback when their children hit grade 5 when the math curriculum gets a little more abstract and their grades start to fall.By that time they are stuck in the immersion program and parents start to question why their kids are struggling.
What I would suggest is the following:
1) If NB is truly a bilingual province then I believe that ALL kids should have mandatory french from kindergarten to grade 10. I believe that if french was taught for 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours a day for 11 years(no choice),it would be enough time that would result in a lot of bilingual kids in the province. Therefore totally eliminating streaming!
2) The subjects used as a vehicle to teach french would be french and social studies, definitely not math and science. Maybe other courses such as Phys Ed, Art, eyc, could be used if time was needed.
3) Possibly all kindergarten students could be 100% french as it is play based and conversational.
4) Advanced french courses would be optional in grades 11 & 12.

IN DEFENCE OF EARLY FRENCH IMMERSION

The amount of effort undertaken to study this issue has been impressive. We do not dispute the statistics or the realization of the need to fix the Province's education system in this regard. Therefore, the desire to implement an Intensive French program in Grade 5 appears to be an appropriate method of increasing the proficiency of Core French students. However, we do not believe that this initiative should come at the expense of Early Immersion.

This decision will severely impact sons and daughters of military personnel who are posted to bases in the Province. There are two problematic scenarios. Families with children who have already been enrolled in Early Immersion programs must then wait until Grade 5 to restart them. Even more disadvantaged are the families whose children begin their education here in New Brunswick only to move to a province that only offers Early Immersion and therefore, are ineligible to join at a later grade. It would be extremely unfortunate if military members decline postings to New Brunswick or decide to move here without their families because of the educational hardships imposed by the elimination of Early French Immersion. Currently, our daughter is set to begin Grade 1 in Fredericton. Our window for remaining in the Province is only one to two more years. Clearly, she will be affected by such an elimination.

We will use the experience of our daughter's kindergarten year to offer two more observations. Firstly, we find it curious that Core French and Early Immersion do not start in kindergarten. Secondly, we are deeply troubled by the amount of time that students are not in school. While the number of weather related days cannot be controlled, they can be made up. Furthermore, the shortened New Brunswick school year and the number of PD days afforded to teachers are beyond anything we have ever seen (this includes many members of our immediate family who are also teachers). For example, in Ontario there are 194 instructional days with six days above that for PD . By comparison, in New Brunswick, there are 183 instructional days with an additional 12 days allocated for PD and other non-instructional days (not including the weekly half days for elementary) .

While we do not begrudge the very necessary full-day PD sessions, the half-day a week PD periods are grossly excessive and not in-line with any other jurisdiction that we are aware of. Over the course of New Brunswick's 39-week school year, those half days equate to 19.5 days of missed instruction. During a student's elementary career (K-8), that amounts to 175.5 days. We can only hope that this significant amount of PD time is being well spent in order to give teachers the latest information, training and support enabling them to perform their duties in an efficient and professional manner. Additionally, this situation places a heavy burden on dual working parent families. If you want to improve test scores and the level of education, we suggest you start there.

I am opposed to the elimination of early French immersion for a number of reasons. First, many experts have argued that the earlier a child has the chance to learn a second language the easier it will be for that child and the more proficient he or she will become. Second, much has been made of the high school attrition rates in the eFi stream and the low levels of completion of French immersion to Grade 12. At the same time, a proficiency test in Grade 12 is being taken as a prime means of judging the success of immersion. In fact, immersing children in French until Grade 10 and then having them do more subjects in English if they are preparing to enter an English post-secondary institution makes a lot of practical sense. This provides students with an early facility in French and a strong background in the language yet allows them to make an easier transition to studying in English. The fact that not everyone completes the immersion program does not mean the program is not producing students who can function very effectively in French.
Since the Minister of Education is looking for suggestions, I would back the Dicks and Kristamanson report, "Alternate Plan for FSL in New Brunswick." I would also draw your attention to Joseph Dicks' report, "The Case for Early French Immersion," which found that EFI is a much stronger program than LFI in ensuring French proficiency and notes that there is no evidence that intensive French will result in Intermediate proficiency for high school graduates. I would also like to note that there is in fact no proof the intensive French will do much of anything at all in the long run.
I have read through much of the information available in the past few months and I have come to the conclusion that this process is inherently flawed. First, the Minister of Education should be consulting parents about their opinions regarding their children's education - Do they want eFi? What are the problems in the program? He should also be consulting teachers and students. While some of this has been done it has not been an open process and the elimination of early French immersion took most people by surprise. Second, questions such as whether eFi is working or how to address the larger problems in the education system, are not easy ones and should be studied by experts in the field over a period of time. I find it outrageous that the Minister would be asking the general public to come up with its own proposals during a six week consultation period when experts spend their lives studying these issues. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Minister to commission reports by established experts in the field and review past reports. The Croll-Lee report has been proven to be extremely flawed and to eliminate efi on the grounds of that report is irresponsible. No other report commissioned over the past few years has favoured the elimination of eFi. I could support educational reform if the Minister had presented a clear justification based on statistical analysis that was properly calculated. As it is, it seems as if the Minister made up his mind to enact change well before the Croll-Lee report was completed.
I would ask the Minister to please reconsider his decision and give all Anglophone children (for immersion is open to all) a fighting chance to obtain the jobs that will keep them in this province - be it in the police force, as a public servant, or even in the service industry anywhere other than southern New Brunswick. All of these jobs require proficiency in French. Let's indeed improve the French of all children but let's not think that can be done by reducing standards.

Il faut applaudir les initiatives prises par les parents anglophones pour tenter de faire renverser la d�cision du gouvernement. Le programme d'immersion pr�coce contribue � l'am�lioration des relations entre anglophones et francophones et sa disparition aurait un impact n�gatif consid�rable sur le caract�re bilingue de la province. Le bilinguisme, c'est notre plus grande richesse. C'est ce qui fait de nous une province unique sur la sc�ne canadienne et c'est ce qui nous positionne avantageusement. D'apr�s les experts, il faut commencer l'apprentissage d'une 2e langue � un tr�s jeune �ge pour conna�tre du succ�s. C'est difficile de comprendre la logique derri�re les intentions du gouvernement - ce n'est pas de cette fa�on que nous allons devenir autosuffisants.

I do not agree with the proposed changes to EFI nor do I agree with methods used by the government to bring about these changes.

The report used to back the decision to make the changes has proven to be flawed and of little value.

This is an important issue for New Brunswick that is worth the time and effort required to make a positive change.

EFI needs more support to allow students with special needs or who require a little extra attention to stick with the program. The core program needs to be reworked. EFI does not need to be eliminated. It is a proven program which produces bilingual children, communicating fluently and effectively in both languages.

Many ideas and proposals have been brought to the table which offer more promising programs with facts and data to support their research. Changes need to be made, but they must be well thought out and there must be a benefit. Change for the sake of making a change by September 2008 will benefit none of our children.

I strongly oppose the elimination of Early French Immersion in our wonderful province of New Brunswick. My husband and I have 3 children in grades 1, 6 and 8 who are achieving much success in the program that they, thankfully, had the opportunity to start at the beginning of their academic careers. Although they are varied in their learning abilities, they can all read, write and speak in both official languages. What a fantastic thing for a child in this bilingual province.

I do not believe the proposed changes will come close to accomplishing what the Grade 1 entry program has achieved. After reading the Commission report, I believe the data is missing key elements making it unreliable and misleading. The issue of streaming will still remain, happening in middle school instead. Believe me, this is an age group that would benefit most from balanced classes. Are we saying it's OK for streaming to occur then? Also, the issue of French Immersion dropouts will still remain because parents and students still have a choice to leave the program at any grade level.

The proposed changes seems to do nothing but save money. Although I realize allocating government funding must be a daunting task, I think most would agree that in a time when "self-sufficiency" is a goal, education is the last area where the government should be penny-pinching.

I am grateful that I am a graduate of the first Early Immersion class in Fredericton. My education has lead to many employment opportunities within and outside government. My language training has also given me a rewarding sense of confidence when speaking and I love being able to use the languages of my community. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT MY IMMERSION IN THE FRENCH LANGUAGE SINCE GRADE ONE MADE THIS POSSIBLE. For a minute, let us disregard any alleged statistics and use our common sense. Can it really be possible that students with only 7 years or less of French Immersion will achieve greater success that those with 12? Change the system to retain them in high school and you'll likely see a dramatic change in your apparent stats. When I went through the program, we still maintained 60% of our course work in French. The only other option was a 50/50 split and few dropped out. This program has worked and can still work. I even took MATH in French in high school and went on to take math, statistics and computer science courses at university. The fear regarding taking math courses in French eludes me. The originators of mathematics were not anglophone! I have classmates now teaching French Immersion. Some went on to be translators, and some simply continue to enjoy the ability to communicate in both official languages. Can it be possible that NB will become the only province in Canada without Early French Immersion?

It has been wonderful to hear my 3 children (even my little boy in GRADE 1!) carry on a conversation with others in French. When my second child struggled in Grade 2 with her reading, the dedicated teachers and staff worked with her. With very little resources, they spent some one-on-one time with her explaining reading strategies. Because, often, help was only available in English - her reading strategy review was done in that language. The incredible thing is that it still helped her French reading! What many forget, but most know in education, reading is reading...language is language. Once you know the concepts and strategies, they can be applied. My past "poor reader" is now an 11 year old "reading machine"...in BOTH LANGUAGES.

I think I'm still in shock to think that New Brunswick children, from now on, will not have the same opportunities. I signed a petition months ago to save Early French Immersion along with thousands of others.

Many of us are now left feeling intensely disappointed and unheard.

As a francophone parent married to an angolphone with a teenager in a french school, I feel very fortunate to have been able to provide my child with an education that will allow her to function equally in both languages. I feel we have provided her with the tools and skills to take advantage of opportunities throughout her future. I feel for anglophone parents who wanted to offer the same opportunity for their children and now feel they cannot. The changes to the program will not provide this. Giving a choice to a child entering the 6th grade to opt for French immersion when their peers may not, will simply not work. A younger child will not face the same peer pressure and is still more open to the views of parents and guardians. I feel this is a grave mistake and should be corrected to provide fair and equal advantage to all children of this Province. At the end of the day it is still a choice, but at least they have the choice.

Madame/Monsieur:

En ce qui concerne le changement propos� � l'enseignement du fran�ais langue seconde, j'aimerais vous faire part de mon opinion.

Personnellement, j'ai enseign�, pour plusieurs ann�es, � des �l�ves inscrits en immersion pr�coce. Par la suite, j'ai enseign� � des �l�ves inscrits en immersion tardive.

Actuellement, je dois vous avouer que je ne connais pas la solution magique pour stimuler la r�ussite des �l�ves. Cependant, laissez-moi vous dire que le r�sultat n'�tait pas semblable. Les �l�ves inscrits en immersion pr�coce s'exprimaient et r�ussissaient(en �criture)beaucoup mieux en "fran�ais" que les �l�ves inscrits en immersion tardive.

Puisque l'�ge des �l�ves �taient, selon moi, un facteur tr�s d�terminant, les �l�ves plus �g�s, ceux insrits en immersion tardive, r�agissaient avec beaucoup moins d'int�r�t, avaient un esprit plus r�serv�e � l'apprentissage de la langue seconde, �taient moins confiants, et j'en passe.

De plus, lorsque les �l�ves inscrits en immersion pr�coce et ceux inscrits en immersion tardive �taient combin�s en 9e ann�e, il �tait tr�s �vident, d'apr�s les r�sultats et mes observations, de reconna�tre le programme auquel �tait inscrit chaque �l�ve.

Il s'agit d'y penser et d'organiser un comit� en s'assurant d'int�grer, entre autres, des gens d'exp�rience au niveau de l'enseignement du fran�ais langue seconde, de l'enseignement en immersion pr�coce et de l'enseignement en immersion tardive.

Afin d'arriver � une proposition plus logique, prenons le temps de bien y r�fl�chir (en ce demandera plusieurs mois d'�tude).

Jusqu'� date, les faits et les r�sultats n'ont pas �t� tr�s r�v�lateurs et convaincants.

While the Minister of Education may have good intentions for the education of NB children, it is clear to me that the decision to scrap the EFI program in favour of an intensive French program was based on flawed premises and data analyses. Here is an example of one of these flawed premises. I have unilingual anglophone parents, and I speak french fluently. I completed primary and secondary school in the EFI program in a rural town. When I started Grade 10, however, the full complement of courses (mandatory and elective) were not available to me in French. I was only able to take one or two courses per semester in French during high school, which, under the Croll-Lee report, would have qualified me as a "drop-out" of the program. But by all accounts I should be considered a success story for the EFI program, since I speak French very well. Clearly I disagree with the Minister's decision to drop the EFI program.

I would consider an intensive French program acceptable if it was proposed for Grade 1, followed by either French Immersion or Core French. That way, parents could decide early on if their child liked or showed an aptitude for the language, and could choose their program accordingly. In either program, a sufficient number or Teaching Assistants need to be available for those students who have difficulty, and these TAs need to be proficient in both languages.

I also disagree with the inaccurate and misleading use of the word "streaming". The Minister of Education has used this word to imply that students are segregated a priori based on proficiency or ability into one of the available programs, and that the EFI program is somehow elitist. The problem is not the method of teaching within the EFI program, but of universal accessibility. Not all rural areas have complete EFI program availability, but students are not segregated or streamed based on ability. If the Minister is concerned about "streaming", then the EFI program must be made available to all students in all schools in N.B.

Last, I beleive a complete consultation process is needed, and that the Minister should take a year to investigate this issue fully. I do not think that changes (with only token public input) to the education system should be made until fall of 2009.

I am in opposition to the government's decision to eliminate parents' 'choice' to place children in the Early French Immersion Program in New Brunswick. The important and valid arguments against the government's decision are well known, including decisions being based on a single flawed report.

I am a product of a late-Immersion Program. I was an Honours student that did 'very well' in the French program, from a grading perspective. That said, I strongly feel that starting to learn the language at an older age hurt my ability to pick-up the language, particularly the proper accent. Based on my experience and the well known point that children are better able to pick-up language at a younger age, I have always said that I would put my kids in Early French Immersion.

I agree improvements can and should be made to the current English and French Immersion Programs. That said, the solution is not to eliminate a program that prepares our children for the future. If 'streaming' is a concern, more funding should be placed into the English system to work with children encountering difficulties. That said, 'streaming' should not be the reason to eliminate the Early French Immersion Program. The popularity of the program should be a good indicator of the importance parents place on this program. It has also been pointed out by many that the proposed elimination of the Early French Immersion Program will simply delay 'streaming' to Grade 6.

I am in support of some recommendations in the French Second Language Review report, including making French language training mandatory for all students and the requirement of French instruction through to Grade 12.

In closing, it is unfortunate that under the proposed elimination of the Early French Immersion Program, the only officially bilingual province in Canada will be the only province not offering Early French Immersion.

Dear Minister Lamrock,
Your plan to eliminate early French immersion (EFI) in the English school system in New Brunswick is flawed and will not allow our children to achieve an advanced level of proficiency in French. Your current plan aims to increase the number of children reaching the intermediate level of proficiency, which is not enough to gain a job with bilingual requirements in New Brunswick or elsewhere. If we are unable to employ our own children in New Brunswick, where a large proportion of service-industry jobs as well as government jobs require bilingualism, then who will we hire? What a shame to be moving toward a school system that creates fewer marketable New Brunswickers. You are asking for suggestions as to how to improve the system. I don't deny that it needs improvement. Many suggestions have been put forward already. I would be very happy with the system suggested by Dr. Joseph Dicks and colleagues, to start French immersion in kindergarten. An alternative mid-entry level French immersion (Grade 2 or 3) would also be acceptable, though less preferable than a Grade 1 or Kindergarten entry point. No French at all until Grade 5 is a bizarre plan for a province aiming to improve the number of French speaking graduates. Why take this gamble? Why remove the program that works? In Ottawa-Carleton a report was recently completed that suggested removing the late French immersion program. Has this scenario been considered for New Brunswick? Please return EFI to New Brunswick classrooms for at least the 2008-09 school year, and take a year to consider all the options available. My daughter will be starting Kindergarten this year, and while I would very much like to know that she can enter EFI in 2009, I would at least be happier knowing that the process being used to arrive at a decision on this topic is fair and authentic.

When New Brunswick Education Minister Kelly Lamrock announced he would address problems in the English school system, I said "Finally!" The problems such as streaming and poor results have been talked about in quiet hushes for years. All parents knew there were issues. Children were being placed in Early French immersion often as a way to avoid what was at least perceived as a horribly broken English language school system. No one wanted to stick their children with the "slow" or the "bad" kids. Since addressing this was considered a political hot potato or "poking the language bear", as some would put it, government after government stuck their heads in the sand instead of fessing up that there was a problem and it needed to be addressed.

So I find myself a bit at odds when thinking about what might work (stress the word might, no one has a proven solution, just some ideas that might improve the odds) because as I've written before subjecting even one more year of children to a system known to be broken seems irresponsible.

But so does rushing ahead with something that might not work at all and enough questions have been raised by opponents (and a court order I might add) to lend one to think that some reflection is required particularly with the Minister allowing less than a month before school starts to implement changes.

One key stumbling block has been the consistent message from the parents and special interest groups fighting to keep EFI...choice. Clearly that hurdle needs to be addressed.

Here are a few ideas to address some of the issues.
- French as a subject needs to be mandatory from K-12 just like English and Math.
- Keep the Grade 5 intensive French program. If math or science is taught though, teach them in English. These are still English kids after all and they are going to use those terms in life in English. That's just the way it is.
- Add another intensive French component in a later grade to offer a bit of an upgrade.
-Create social situations in which the kids can actually use French in a way that is relevant. It's great to say they speak a bunch of languages in Europe and look to them but in those countries where that's the truth that's because it's become a necessity. That's not the case here. In most areas of New Brunswick when EFI children leave school, they don't hear any French until the next day in class. Kelly Lamrock is correct that no matter what is done in school students will have to maintain it on their own when they get out of school. Use it or lose it is accurate when it comes to language.
- Test the students French at least once a year so that programs can be adjusted for effectiveness and relevance.
- Finally, scrap EFI and consider scrapping late immersion but not for another two to three years and here's why.
Officials with the French language school system have already spoken publicly that they have no problem with English students attending the French schools even if both parents are English. They do however require some effort on the parent's part to get the children ready. A two to three year window allows that preparation time for parents who want to have their children educated in French. Yes I know there are not French schools throughout New Brunswick but neither is EFI offered throughout New Brunswick. Many rural areas don't have EFI now. This way there would be an enhanced French instruction for all students and a vast amount of the province is covered with French schools including mostly English areas such as Saint John, Fredericton and Miramichi. In the end, if there's an enhanced French program, don't expect a mass exodus to French schools. There's a cultural issue at play too and most English parents will want their kids in an English school. However this allows many English parents to have their children educated in French if they want.

One caveat is that French immersion still needs to be properly funded for the next decade and a half as existing students work their way through the system. This is critical so that those students aren't left behind either.

Are there pros and cons to this? Just like all of the plans of course there are but it is compromise all around and in the end more children will be better for it.

Since it seems that lots of people like the idea of streamed classes, why not allow some form of streaming by having classes of different levels throughout the school years? These levels could be run much like levels 1, 2 usually found at about grade 10.

However, the difference is that the 'lower' streams must have good quality teachers, and the lower class counts.

The idea is to bring up the level of the students who are not getting such high marks, while allowing the higher marked children to get some challenge.

No matter what system is adopted, the whole success of the school system depends on the teachers. Some are good, and some not so good. From my experince with 4 children (2 FI & 2 Core), the good can be old, or young, technically adept or old-school. Maybe it is attitude: that should be encouraged, and the belive that what the teacher does counts.

I attended early French immersion as a child (grades 1-9). I found the experience to be very rewarding and beneficial. With all the jobs that require people to be bilingual, this experience was invaluable. Trying to pick up a second language later in life is difficult; small children are so receptive to new languages. Please don't take this opportunity away from our children. They need every advantage in this world in order to be successful.

I disagree with the decision to eliminate Early French Immersion. I agree that the education system is flawed and changes need to be made, however, not at the expense of the children who are entering Grade 1 in September.
Why don't we keep it simple and work with what we know.

We know:

-EFI is a successful program
-streaming is occurring our schools
-Intensive French is new with no track record
-N.B. is the only official bilingual province

Instead of relpacing EFI, a program that has proven to be successful, with Intensive French, why not make EFI available to all children. If the availability of resources were the same in EFI and Core French then everyone would have an equal oppurtunity to learn French - the best way possible.

In the only bilingual province in Canada, it seem's absurd to take away the option of Early French Immersion. Why not take a program that works and make it available to everyone? Why was this option not explored more intensely?

I am deeply opposed to the government's stated plan to eliminate early French immersion in the province, and feel that an education system without such a choice - in a bilingual province, in this day and age when having not only second language proficiency, but the facility for learning a third or fourth language is almost necessary - is a regressive education system.

I want to state upfront that I am not terribly optimistic about the outcome of this putative consultation process. It seems to me that the input was there for the taking before the government made its decision and that rather than seeking expert opinion and investigating real options, the Minister of Education was quite prepared to bulldoze the decision through, even despite continuing objections from citizens, the courts and the Ombudsman. I am not writing with an alternate proposal, per se. That is not my job, nor the job of any citizen - to come up with an education plan. With all due respect, and acknowledgment that an education minister's job is a difficult one, that is the job of Kelly Lamrock - and in this democratic arrangement, it is our job as citizens, to call government on the decisions we think are faulty. What I would hope is that this particular democratic government responds to those calls.

I am aware that other models have been proposed, most notably by Joseph Dicks. I have looked at his plan, and it seems to me a solid one, taking into account a child's facility with language, the reality that this is a bilingual province, and the issue of streaming. His plan would also allow for real choice in education in this province. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all model of education for children, and while I would like to think that New Brunswick could be a real leader in bilingual education and in its inclusion policy, I would argue that what we need in a system with such a wide range of abilities are decent French and English programs.

It seems to me self-evident that a province that is struggling for self-sufficiency, to be a player in this world, would look beyond its own borders for models of educational excellence - and then very closely, within its own borders, to the root causes of the current malaise in education in this province: low test scores and streaming.

Low test scores and streaming are not the fault of a high-quality second language instruction program. (School District 18 has very high test scores, and also the highest participation rate in French immersion.) Why - if real and long-term change is wanted - would we not look to the root causes of the two realities of streaming and provincial standing in test scores, and address those, or at the least acknowledge that three issues cannot be solved with one approach.

What of inclusion? You will have already heard evidence about children's - all children's - ability to learn in a language not their mother tongue, with the right supports, and you have replied that there are not the resources for this support. My question then is, why have a policy of inclusion in a province that cannot adequately support those children who need more help? Shouldn't the question of how children with any kind of exceptional needs are currently being supported in the Core program be addressed? Are they doing well? And if not, how will combining school populations help them?

You ask what can be done, and declare that something has to be done. I would agree, and only ask that in making any decision, it not be one which is regressive, hastily made and ignores a current reality of the province and the world: it cannot be seen as progressive to educate children in only one language. We moved to this province partly because of the high-quality second language instruction available, and the richness of living in a place where our children will have real opportunities to hear and speak French regularly. We are now reconsidering this move, and know a family who is moving out of province this month in large part because of the experience one child has had in intensive French, and because of the fact that immersion seems likely to be removed for their child entering the system this fall.

What of other provinces, other places in the world, where children are educated in languages other than their mother tongue - and do very well to speak and write and read as adults? Why are we only looking at our own problems, our own system, as if there were no experts beyond our borders, no examples of education working better than New Brunswick's? A teacher I spoke to said that in the last few years great strides have been made in French language instruction, and that teaching French to children with exceptional needs is entirely possible, even considering the lack of resources available to educators now. Why not capitalize on this?

I have not seen or heard anything from the government that comes close to adequately explaining how this new system is going to be good for anyone.

EFI is a very good program in New Brunswick. I would urge the government not to use it as a scapegoat for what ails the education system.

I am a mother of two daughters who are bilingual. I have three grandchildren, only one of which was lucky enough to get into the immersion program. My grandson is in kindergarden and will be negatively effected by the proposed changes. My granddaughter is 4 and will also be negatively effected. I see how much my grandson learned in Grade 1 immersion this year. He is reading in French and understands most basic conversations. I am disappointed the government is getting rid of a program that works. Inclusion into this program could be facilitated by adding more resources and giving teachers more training in dealing with special needs children. Less children will graduate bilingual which is sad since we live in a bilingual province. Please improve the current system to include everyone. We need changes to our current education system but not the ones proposed by the current Educaton Minister.