Government of New Brunswick

Department of Education

Home

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments appear in the language received.

Dear Minister Lamrock,

In your government's discussion paper, Putting Our Kids' Achievement First, you asked New Brunswickers to consider the challenges being faced with regard to
· improving French second-language skills,
· improving overall student achievement, and
· providing more enrichment and physical activity opportunities.

Please consider the following suggestions for improving the existing education system in New Brunswick.

In response to the question "what programs do we need in New Brunswick to give all kids an opportunity to acquire strong French second-language skills?" please consider:
· EFI offered in all areas of the province, including rural areas.
· Intensive French offered in all areas of the province, including rural areas, so that those who chose not to do EFI can boost their French knowledge.
· LFI offered in all areas of the province, including rural areas.
· Replacing the Core program with a more robust program both prior to and following the intensive French program.
· Encourage struggling children to stay in EFI by providing honest, upfront information to parents of these children so that they understand that while there may be more resources in the Core program to help struggling children, there are also currently more children in need of these resources in the Core program so unless the issues a particular child is facing are severe, it's unlikely that they will receive any more resources by moving them to the Core program than they would receive by leaving them in EFI.
· More resources available in all programs to help struggling children.

Some school districts and some schools in New Brunswick offered EFI, Intensive French, LFI, and the core program during the 2007-2008 school year. Why is there a need to eliminate any of these programs? While none work for all children, each of these programs has a place in educating our children. Why should a parent or teacher be able to limit the future opportunities of a child by not allowing them to learn French at an early age? Even if that child never uses the French skills taught, the experience of learning a second language and broadening the child's exposure to other cultures and to the idea that not everyone is the same, is a lesson that will help create more tolerant, respectful citizens and will foster a love of learning. If we hope that at least some of our children will remain in New Brunswick after completing their education to work and raise families, we need to prepare them to live here, by offering them opportunities to become bilingual.

In response to the question "How can parents and the community support kids in learning a second language?" please consider:
· Do away with the existing duality created by having separate English and French school districts making interaction between English and French speaking students acceptable in the school environment and providing more opportunities for Anglophones to interact with Francophones.
· Encourage struggling children to stay in EFI by providing honest, upfront information to parents of these children so that they understand that while there may be more resources in the Core program to help struggling children, there are also currently more children in need of these resources in the Core program so unless the issues a particular child is facing are severe, it's unlikely that they will receive any more resources by moving them to the Core program than they would receive by leaving them in EFI.
· Support children who struggle in EFI rather than moving them to the Core program.
· Increase resources available to Anglophone parents to assist their children with French. In particular, resources are needed for families where no one in the home speaks any French and are unable to help children in EFI or LFI. Things such as online dictionaries that not only translate and define a word, but also provide an auditory component that would correctly pronounce words would be valuable. Something as simple as providing instructions for homework in English so that parents understood what the expectations with regard to homework were so that they could discuss this with their child who's working in French would be beneficial.
· What are the reasons that students are not entering EFI? Investigate these reasons so that issues preventing children from enrolling in EFI can be addressed potentially resulting in higher enrolment in EFI.
· Provide FSL options in all schools including rural schools.
· Provide opportunities to study in French in high school that are relevant. Do not put children in a position where they have to chose French or a university or college preparatory course.
· To better be able to judge the French proficiency level of graduating students, have all students that complete high school take the French proficiency test, that is now optional, at no cost.
· Address concerns that parents have with homework as it relates to the EFI program so that parents do not turn away from this program because they are overwhelmed with the expectations with regard to homework. One hour of homework a night for a nine year old child is a deterrent to entering EFI.
· One of the existing strengths of the current education system is EFI. Do not eliminate it.

In response to the question "How do we turn things around, and give all kids an equal opportunity to learn and achieve in all subjects, especially the fundamental areas of English, math and science?"

Are not all children taught these subjects in school now? In what ways is the instruction of these fundamentals unequal? Wouldn't a better question be how do we improve in the areas of English, math and science? And, if, as implied in the discussion paper, factors that prevent New Brunswick from achieving higher scores in these fundamental areas include socio-economical factors and a lack of a learning culture, shouldn't you be asking
· how do we address the socio-economical factors we're faced with as New Brunswickers, and
· how do we create a learning culture?
Answering these questions and implementing changes to address the issues associated with these issues would go a long way towards improving in the areas of English, math and science.

In response to the question "In New Brunswick's inclusive environment, how do we address
streaming and class composition issues?" please consider:
· If we eliminate EFI, with the hope that more children will enter LFI, are we not just delaying issues of streaming? Would it not be better to try to increase the numbers of children entering EFI and to provide more resource for EFI so that some of those that struggle in EFI would remain there instead of moving to Core? And, we need to stop putting parents on the defensive if a child that struggles remains in EFI. Why do some teachers and school administrators make parents feel as if this choice is questionable at best and certainly not the best choice to help a struggling child?
· Encourage struggling children to stay in EFI by providing honest, upfront information to parents of these children so that they understand that while there may be more resources in the Core program to help struggling children, there are also currently more children in need of these resources in the Core program so unless the issues a particular child is facing are severe, it's unlikely that that child will receive any more resources by moving to the Core program than he would receive by staying in EFI.
· Support should be made available to all children who struggle and that support should be available in all programs - EFI, LFI, Core, and Intensive French.
· Empower Anglophone parents of children in EFI and LFI to be able to help their children by providing resources to parents to assist their children with French. Things such as online dictionaries that not only translate and define a word, but also have an auditory component where you could hear the word pronounced would be beneficial. Something as simple as providing instructions for homework in English so that parents understood what the expectations with regard to homework were so that they could discuss this with their child who's working in French would be beneficial.

I agree that these suggestions are not going to eliminate streaming completely, but keeping some struggling children in EFI will reduce the amount of streaming that currently exists, and, unless you move to one FSL program that's mandatory for all children with no options, I don't believe that you can eliminate streaming and still have an inclusive system. Eliminating EFI only delays the streaming to a later grade, and, I suspect, that the streaming problem will be worse in a later grade where the child has more of a voice in the decision as to whether or not they take French immersion and where peer pressure also factors into the decision. I also suspect that while the enrollment for LFI may go up if EFI is eliminated, that the total enrollment of EFI and LFI will go down reducing the number of graduates finishing an immersion program.

In response to the question "How do we give kids more opportunities for enrichment and physical activity?" please consider:
· Increase the length of the school day so that enrichment and physical activity can be added to the curriculum without taking away from fundamentals like English, math and science. Depending on the amount of enrichment and physical activity, this may also increase the amount of time available to be spent on the fundaments.
· Explore alternative learning methods that give children opportunities to become active while studying what was traditionally book work. For example, a social studies/history course could include a walk to a local war memorial or a science course could include a hike in a local nature park to learn about various types of trees.
The overriding question asked in the discussion paper is "What kind of system can we put in place, in a fiscally responsible and sustainable way, that builds on existing strengths, helps all kids become bilingual, produces excellent results in English, math and science, and exposes our children to art, music and physical education?" I believe I've addressed this question in my responses to the individual questions asked earlier in the discussion paper with the exception of the fiscally responsible component of it.

One of the suggestions I've made is to increase resources for all students, struggling or not. On the surface, this doesn't seem fiscally responsible. However, I believe that there are probably lots of opportunities for time and expense saving efficiencies within the administration of the education system. For example, the simple rules of economies of scale tell me that eliminating the duality of French and English school districts would lead to some cost savings. Surely other opportunities exist allowing the savings to be recycled into resources on the front line where they are most needed in helping our children.

This discussion only begins to look at the where the education system is failing our children and how it could be improved to better serve our children. The school environment is one is made up of much more than academics. Nowhere in the proposed changes have I read where issues of bullying, peer pressure, overcrowding, or unrealistic demands of homework are addressed. Nowhere have I read where delays in diagnosing learning disabilities and behavioural problems have been addressed. These are only some of what I'm sure are many issues that schools are currently dealing with that need to be addressed if we hope to have a school system that serves the needs of the many children of New Brunswick.

Anything less than a delay to the proposed changes until the 2009-2010 school year leaves me concerned that the children of New Brunswick will be short changed. Yes, I agree that the current system isn't working well and changes need to be made. I also agree that we don't want to wait too long to implement change as each passing year means one more year of children that don't benefit from any improvements that can be made. Yet, I feel that some compromise of timeline is required to allow all opinions to be heard, to allow time to properly explore and find a better solution, to include non-academic issues where the education system is failing in the changes, and to plan for a smooth, controlled introduction of whatever changes are decided upon.

I look forward to hearing the announcement in August on what FSL programs will be in place in English school districts for the fall.

Being the Grandfather of a very intelligent 9 year old who has been in this useless immersion education process and can not spell one word of either English or French,I say PLEASE get rid of this damaging experiment and enact laws that will never allow it to be perpetrated on society ,who cares nothing about their child's education,again.
And a big thank you,so far.

1. What will change parental choice?

Actively promote the benefits of French Immersion and bilingualism. Implement a province wide promotion campaign with TV, radio and newsprint ads in order to reach all parents, not just the ones attending district information sessions.
District information sessions should be conducted by the District French second language supervisor. Many principals have difficulty with the information sessions as they are not bilingual themselves and have no idea about the process of learning a second language so therefore let their own prejudices enter into their information sessions. Parents have been scared away from immersion by district superintendents and principals when they tell them immersion is an elite program or it is for the gifted child.
Provide support for struggling students in the program and stop transferring them out to the English program. And let parents know that everything possible will be done to help their child succeed in the immersion program.

2. Why are children who struggle concentrated in one program?
Parents of children on SEP's are advised to move their children from immersion to the Core program, or they are advised not to put their children in immersion in the first place, because the specialized resources are found largely in the Core program
Actively promote the benefits of bilingualism in areas of the province where lower socio-economic levels are found. Allow parents to view an immersion class in progress.
Ensure the "right" people are promoting immersion. FSL staff at the Department and at the District level should be the most qualified and motivated with proven leadership skills and a strong belief in French immersion and French second language education

3. How much do we value equality of opportunity?
We want all children to be in environments which are conducive to learning, that opportunity should be equal
Equality does not mean identical paths for everyone, it means supporting and encouraging students to become the best they can be
Each child should be given the opportunity to achieve at the highest level they are capable of, including the opportunity of obtaining a high level of bilingualism

4. What is the right level of French achievement for the broadest cross section of the population of students?
The right level is the highest level a student is capable of and desires to attain, especially in a bilingual province
It is critical to maintain the FSL program which is a proven path to Advanced French proficiency and make it accessible to all children, as this could be the only opportunity for children of low socio-economic backgrounds to attain a high level of bilingualism, with no feasible clear route after graduation from high school
Many parents and students will not have the desire to learn a second language at the Advanced level of attainment, but for those who do have the desire, it is critical to maintain the path to Advanced proficiency in the public school system so as not to exclude those from becoming proficiently bilingual who do not have the financial ability to pay for further training after high school

5. What should our provincial goals, as a bilingual province, be for FSL education?
Our goal must be to ensure a path exists for children to attain an Advanced level of proficiency
Based on academic research, this path to Advanced proficiency narrows the later the entry point to French Immersion, the earlier a French Immersion program is started, the less chance of streaming
Based on research, the path to streaming widens the later the entry point to French Immersion
An early French Immersion entry point should be maintained until the Intensive and Post-Intensive French program has been proven to produce higher than Intermediate results or above at high school graduation.

6. How can the Education Minister do this better from here?
The Minister needs to be more thoughtful about rolling out sustainable changes with widespread buy-in
Recognize the implementation of sweeping changes for the sake of doing things differently is not the best pathway to excellence in education as there is a risk if quickie, short-term actions are implemented without thorough study and piloting, these changes could lead to long-term failures
Getting it right the first time is crucial. Implementing Intensive French with the hopes it will achieve Intermediate or Intermediate Plus is dangerous and may be very disappointing for parents and students. Wait until we have test results to prove the long term ramifications of Intensive French and make French Immersion more accessible to more students now.
Acceptable Alternative Proposals to eliminating all French instruction in Anglophone schools from grades one to four:

1. Follow Dr. Joseph Dicks proposal. Minimize streaming early on and prevent it later.

2. Offer a blended immersion program so students can have classes such as gym, art, and music together.

3. Widely promote the benefits of Early French Immersion in public schools to ensure advanced bilingualism is within the reach of all students.

4. Provide a 50-50 Kindergarten bilingual experience so parents and students will feel more comfortable with French and more will choose Early Immersion.

5. Improve Core French with the AIM program, and offer it in blocks of time, rather than a few minutes a day. Ensure struggling students in Immersion receive support (in French where appropriate, but not necessarily in French) to ensure the Immersion choice is based on learning advanced language skills and not on class composition.

6. By using the AIM approach in Core French, students would be better prepared to enter the mandatory Intensive French program at grade five and would be better equipped to reach the Intermediate Plus level by high school graduation.

7. Implement a policy of inclusion and retention in immersion in order to eliminate attrition. Recognize that our NB total inclusion policy and our social promotion (no fail) policy has caused difficulties within our education system and develop strategies to address the challenges. Cancelling Early Immersion will only lower the SEP's per class by one. Investigate a new class size policy based on children's needs.

8. Only offer Late Immersion in areas where Early Immersion is not available. Make the Early Immersion entry point Kindergarten and for those who don't chose it make Intensive French mandatory at grade five with a Post-Intensive French option in middle school.

9. Increase the length of the school day to the Canadian average to provide more time for enrichment and specialized classes, such as gym, art, and music.

10. Test students for proficiency at the end of grade 10 and if they have reached the proficieny goal for their chosen FSL program, allow them to discontinue with FSL education if they desire to concentrate on other courses to prepare for university. Those who test below the goal of their program should be encouraged to continue their FSL education until the end of grade twelve.

1. Increase French proficiency for a greater number of students...
Improve the Core French program by using AIM in grades K to four and Intensive
French in grade five
Make Early French Immersion (the FSL program which produces the most proficient speakers) inclusive by making it more accessible to more students
Recognize that Late French Immersion attracts only high academic achievers and has the highest drop out rate in high school
Recognize that the Intermediate level of proficiency is extremely misleading and will be far below what New Brunswickers have come to expect the term bilingual to mean. This will frustrate many disenchanted students once they realize at the end of high school Intermediate is not high enough to apply for, or obtain, bilingual employment
Recognize in order to obtain the level of bilingualism that New Brunswickers need for employment (Intermediate Plus or higher) all of the Grade five Intensive French students would have to move into Late Immersion and to achieve the 70% bilingualism goal of the NB government, 70% of those Intensive French students would have to stay in Late French Immersion until graduation.
2. Improve achievement in literacy, mathematics and science
Give all students equal access to special services no matter what FSL program they are participating in
Recognize that literacy, mathematics, and science are not language specific
Recognize that New Brunswick Anglophone students are on par in these subjects with students in provinces of similar economic make-up, like NS, PEI, SK and NL.
Recognize that attracting qualified FSL teachers for elementary EFI is difficult enough. It becomes even more challenging when you have to attract FSL Specialist teachers for middle school and high school
3. Provide additional time during the school day for physical education, art, music, and other enrichment activities

Investigate the length of the school year and the length of the school day in New Brunswick in comparison to other provinces
Again, recognize these subjects are not language specific and can be taught in French or English
Recognize that classrooms full to the maximum, with approximately one less SEP student per class will not automatically improve classroom composition or give more time for enrichment
4. Address Streaming
Address what is causing streaming - lack of information to parents about the benefits of FSL education; the perception partly caused by Department of Education and school district staff that Early French Immersion in only for high academic achievers- scaring parents from putting their children in the program in the first place; stop academic streaming by providing access to R&M teachers, and TA's in all programs and giving Kindergarten students a bilingual experience by using a universal 50-50 French/English program
Investigate flexible class sizes in which the cap is not necessarily a set number of children, but rather a combination of number of children and level of needs of the children to provide smaller class sizes for children where need warrants
Recognize that Late Immersion works well for those who take it and finish it, but it only attracts very strong students who are confident they can handle the demands of learning a second language along with obtaining the necessary post-secondary pre-requisites in a second language

Is it fair to lower the bar by two proficiency levels, from Advanced to Intermediate, and to call this an improvement to our FSL programs?

Is it fair to penalize Early French Immersion students on the basis of a hypothetical assumption (based on faulty data from the discredited Croll/Lee recommendations) that another group may benefit if EFI were taken away?

Is it fair to deny all Anglophone children in New Brunswick the opportunity to reach an Advanced level of French proficiency by high school graduation?

Is it fair to deprive all children the benefits of learning French in grade one and the resulting loss of cognitive benefits to first language skills and mathematics?

Is it fair to assume that struggling learners will automatically do better academically by simply eliminating Early French Immersion and placing all children in the same classroom?

Is it fair to take away the option of studying in French in elementary school for thousands of Anglophone students in a bilingual province, when every other province in Canada begins Early French Immersion in Kindergarten?

Is it reasonable to tell parents in March, who have already registered for Early French Immersion in February 2008, that the program is no longer available for the coming school year?

Is it reasonable to ignore the NB Ombudsman's recommendation to slow down on a decision of such magnitude, which will affect our provinces ability to employ Anglophones who are not proficiently bilingual and will lower our pool of available bilingual workers?

Is it reasonable to rush into the decision to eliminate EFI because the Minister feels he has to just do something when we have no idea if eliminating EFI will help struggling students, but we do know it will hurt our goal of bilingualism, our efforts to keep our skilled workers in our province, and the ability for our children to work alongside our Francophone friends and neighbours?

Given the unique nature of our bilingual province, we owe it to all of our children to offer them an avenue to obtain a minimum of Intermediate French proficiency and still give those who desire it an opportunity to attain an Advanced proficiency in French. We must develop innovative practices that will reduce streaming and classroom composition. It is not acceptable or prudent to sacrifice the best French second language program in the province, indeed in the country, at the feet of inclusion. It is not acceptable to ignore the needs of learning challenged, special needs, or gifted children.

The Minister of Education needs to pause on his decision to eliminate Early French Immersion.

Yes, New Brunswick students deserve better. Better should be putting together a plan that strengthens FSL education, including Early French Immersion, with Special Education support that allows more students to benefit and stay in the EFI program. Better should be increasing our level of bilingualism, not lowering the bar and eliminating opportunities for children to become proficiently bilingual by the time they graduate from high school.
We must find a way to address the classroom composition issue while still maintaining a clear path for students to reach Advanced proficiency in French by the time they graduate from high school. This is imperative to maintain and increase our future bilingual work force and to strengthen the bilingual fabric of our province.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,

As a student of immersion from New Brunswick and, now a French teacher, I am outraged at the possible decision to remove the Early Immersion program in the province and cancel parts of the Core program.

It has been well documented that younger students acquire critical fluency at a much faster rate than older students. Additionally, motivation tends to be much higher in elementary school.

I assure you, the goal of bilingualism will not be reached by changing the age at which students learn French, but by only changing the methods used to teach French. I have had outstanding success with the program AIM (Accelerative Integrated Method). Based on credible research (Maxwell,1999, Jean,1999, Stern 1980) fluency-based approaches are the most successful in learning a second language. More information about AIM and student achievement using AIM is available at www.aimlanguagelearning.com. As I understand it, AIM is prohibited in New Brunswick's Extended French program. Refusing to offer a program that consistently provides opportunities for success for young students is an injustice to them and their future.

In Canada's only bilingual province, and during a time when the French language is a precious commodity in Canada, I feel it is your responsibility to ensure a strong French program for students of all ages, especially in elementary school when cognitive development is so high.

On a very personal note, I urge you to reconsider changing this time-honoured tradition. It is because of the New Brunswick Immersion program that I now feel confident in my career today as a French teacher. It is in New Brunswick that I fell in love with French.

I think Bruce Robertson's idea of "blended" immersion (as introduced at the Stakeholders Sessions) is one of the first good ideas I've heard in these discussions; however, I feel that even good ideas such as this need to be carefully considered before they are implemented. Time for some damage control. The EFI program has already lost too many good teachers to more secure positions during the governments mishandling of the situation. And the government's complete disregard for practicality (such as gym availability for their proposed enhanced physical education program) would ensure chaos for the upcoming year should they be allowed to implement ill-considered changes at this late date.

Dear Minister Lamrock,

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on the proposed changes to French Second Language teaching in New Brunswick. I have found the whole ordeal to be a real slap in the face to French teachers as those of us actually in the classroom on a daily basis were under a gag order for several weeks following the original announcement. The N.B.T.A. has only represented the view of some of its membership on this particular issue.

I am a Middle School French Second Language teacher, with 15 years in the field. I am the product of true early French immersion starting in Kindergarten, I taught Late Immersion for 9 years, and Core French for 3 years, so I can comfortably say that I am familiar with all three scenarios of language acquisition.

I am not adverse to change. Were I so, I would not choose to work in a Middle School. I do agree that our present system is not perfect and that there is room for improvement, however, I am deeply concerned with the complete abolition of all early French Language instruction. As is the case with most skills, the earlier a child is introduced to a new language, the better. "A very large majority of experts believe that early immersion is the best way to learn a second language," said the Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser on May 29. His annual report reads: "... the Commissioner is concerned about the decision of the province's Minister of Education to end early immersion programs". Children should be learning the language earlier when they are less self-conscious about making mistakes, less affected by negative peer-pressure and hormones. It takes a truly remarkable student with a real ear for the language to learn French starting in Grade 5 or 6. Few of my Late Immersion students have ever learned to speak as well as my seven-year old son after only Grade 1 EFI (with no French at home before he started school, I might add.)

The removal of Early French Immersion will have a detrimental affect on cultural understanding in our bilingual province. Our children do actually benefit from learning their neighbours' native language at an early age. Bilingualism could well become a thing of the past under your current scheme. We have a mandate to promote cultural understanding in our schools. How are these changes seeking to achieve this? The proposed changes essentially deny young Anglophone children access to French.

Eliminating all French Language instruction in elementary school has never been tested and worries me greatly. Core children do retain vocabulary and knowledge from elementary Core French even if it is not apparent. The new Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM) programme will undoubtedly help improve their skills even more if it's given a chance. Intensive French in Grade 5 is a good idea for most children, but not without prior elementary Core French as this has never been tested, and was never the intension of the programme according to Joan Netten herself. It is unreasonable to expect Elementary French to be replaced by "out of class French activities." Schools already attempt to expose children to such programmes to a large degree, but these activities are few and far between, especially in rural areas. Let's face it: there are only so many French activities we can provide for children during the course of a school year.

I ask you to consider Dr. Joseph Dicks's study results. In Late Immersion, only 9 % of students achieved an Advanced Proficiency, compared to 42% in Early Immersion. (This may well be inaccurate as only 20% of the students were even tested, and is probably much higher as the proficiency assessment was optional. The assessment expected students to speak only in complete sentences. This is unnatural even for a native speaker.) In eliminating Early Immersion, we will have far less children functioning at a level necessary for the next generation of French teachers. Who will teach our children in the future when it is already difficult to find qualified teachers?

I fail to understand how you can blame the EFI system for streaming in New Brunswick. Parents have had the choice to either place their children in EFI or in the Core programme. Literacy skills for these children in the early elementary years are very comparable. The main disparity between the two systems, which may account for parents choosing the Core system, is the lack of Methods and Resource teachers and Teacher Assistants in French Immersion. If children struggle in EFI, they are switched into the English programme where they hope to get the help they need. This is the cause for the perception of streaming. This problem does not improve in any way in Late Immersion, and will only become worse with the removal of EFI.

The elimination of Early Immersion is said to reduce Special Education Plan students in Core classes. Mr. Lamrock, when I have 7 S.E.P.'s in my Grade 6 class with no T.A. support, one less will not make a bit of difference. Teacher Assistant support is limited to medically fragile students in our system, meaning very little help for those struggling academically. This is a problem in our system that teachers have been lamenting for years. It is a problem at all levels and in all subjects, and must be addressed.

As you are asking for alternative recommendations, I believe that Dr. Dicks and Dr. Kristmanson's option of May 7, 2008 is very sound. They suggest that Core French begin in Kindergarten, and continue to Grade 4 using programmes such as the Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM). Intensive French would be taught for one semester in Grade 5, and enhanced French would continue in Middle School, with more French options in High School. In the Dicks-Kristmanson scenario, French Immersion would begin in Kindergarten and continue till Grade 12. Late Immersion would be phased out. I reiterate that additional Methods and Resource teachers and Teaching Assistants are needed at all levels, and must not be limited to medically fragile children.

Once again, I thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. The proposed changes to FSL programmes in New Brunswick and the gag order placed on teachers this year has caused me a tremendous amount of stress as a French teacher. You have asked for viable alternatives. Drs. Dicks and Kristmanson have presented you with one which makes sense based on sound theories of language acquisition. Please do not implement changes which could well lead to the demise of bilingualism in this province that I love.

I would like to share my perspective as an early years teacher on this very important issue. First, I can say that as a former kindergarten teacher, it was very difficult for me to help parents decide which program to place their child. With more children going into Early Immersion than Core in the schools where I taught, the English classes were unbalanced with many more difficult situations and challenges. How does one advise parents which program is best for "their" child when there is so much unfairness?

I have never spoken to an early years teacher who believed that a struggling child would acquire literacy better in the Early Immersion program. Literacy is more readily acquired in a language the learner already knows. Connections between sound and letter, phonological awareness skills, and even basic skills such as letter recognition are crucial components for EFI success. The program moves at such an accelerated rate for the struggling student, it often becomes overwhelming. Parental involvement in a child's education is also paramount for success in the early immersion program. The reality is, all parents do not recognize the importance their role plays in providing their child the most opportunity for success.

When the U.S government commissioned a study on how to prevent reading difficulties for their children, a great deal of the National Research Council's report dealt with how best to teach non-English speaking children, most of whom were of Spanish origin. The authors write, "The accumulated wisdom of research in the field of bilingualism and literacy tends to converge on the conclusion that initial literacy instruction in a second language can be successful, that it carries with it a higher risk of reading problems and of lower ultimate litercy attainment than inital literacy instruction in a first language, and that this risk may compound the risks associated with poverty, low levels of parental education, poor schooling, and other such factors... This conclusion leads us to urge initial literacy instruction in a child's native language whenever possible and to suggest that literacy instruction should not be introduced in any language before some reasonable level of oral proficiency in that language has been attained." This is in keeping with the United Nation's education position paper. They write, "Mother tongue instruction is considered to be an important component of quality education, particularly in the Early Years. The expert view is that mother tongue instruction should cover both the teaching of and the teaching through this language." With everything I know about teaching and learning, I too believe our children, especially our children who are behind in their literacy development, should be learning to read and write in their mother tongue and not be encouraged to learn to read and write in a second language first.

When former studies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper (2000) made their recommendations on our second language shortcomings, they did not have the imperical data that we now have. Kindergarten children now have report cards and standardized test results which measure their progress. Overwhelming numbers of "Strong Performance" kindergarten children go into the EI program. The idea of streaming is not merely anecdotal. And unless parents of SP children decide to reverse the decades-old trend and decide to place their children in the English program, there is no way to ever make the two early years programs heterogenetic.

Northrop Fry believed "that the native language takes precedence over every other subject of study; that nothing else can compare with it in usefulness." We can raise the bar in this province - but equality, fairness, and sound pedagogy need to be at the heart of our public education. We need to meld our ideologies by working together and build a win-win system from the ground up. It won't happen over night, but Mr. Lamrock is on the right track, wanting to remove the two-tiered system and teaching our six year old children together.

We should all be hoping he doesn't wait yet another year.

Mr. Kelly Lamrock, Minister of Education

I am writing to express my support for your efforts to improve the educational system for the majority of Anglophone students in NB. Streaming is having an extremely serious negative effect on the quality of education in the regular English classrooms. The early French immersion system works very well for a minority of students, but it cannot be justified on an overall basis, and should not be continued. An educational program for French as a second language in this officially bilingual province is important for all children, not just for an elite few.

One suggestion for helping to achieve this would be for children to attend French immersion summer camps during the July-August school breaks. The schools are of course largely unused during this time period, and should be available for a worthy educational purpose. The regular English school system throughout the academic year should be structured for the benefit of all students equally with an appropriate focus on content, including an appropriate amount of core French as a second language. The French immersion summer camps could therefore focus on enjoyable activities and communication skills, and provide an opportunity for students to get necessary practice. Attendance at several such immersion camps throughout their elementary and intermediate school years should help students become fluently bilingual.

There would be a cost for these French immersion summer camps, and that raises the question of who should pay the cost for the children who attend them. With the present early French immersion system, all NB taxpayers are paying for the cost, even though in practice it has become an elite system which is not truly open and available to all. The EFI system operates with relatively small class sizes and consumes resources which should be utilized for all students. Also, the very existence of the EFI system generates institutionalized segregation through streaming which is injurious to the education of the majority of the students in the non-EFI classes. This is neither a fair nor a good way to use taxpayer dollars when they are not applied to the education of the majority.

If the French immersion summer camps were to be open and available to all, and not run as an exclusive or elite program, then it would be appropriate for their cost to be supported, at least in part, by the Province through the Department of Education. Those parents in favor of the current EFI system might prefer that such immersion summer camps be provided totally free of charge for their children, much as they are now benefitting from the current EFI system. However, some form of self-pay or co-pay system should not be seen as unreasonable by those parents who consider a high level of French language proficiency to be of the utmost importance.

Dear Minister Lamrock and Premier Graham:

Thank you for establishing this public consultation site. It is important that a wide range of opinions and positions be not only heard, but also taken into account where such a sensitive an important policy decision is concerned. Moreover, I would like to applaud your commitment to raising our province's educational standards. As a post-secondary educator, I can only support this overall goal.

That said, I must also state my strong opposition to the intention to eliminate EFI. As you know, and as I hardly need emphasize at this point, the overwhelming majority of research into the subject indicates unambiguously that the earlier language acquisition begins, the more thoroughly the language is learned. For this reason alone, EFI ought not to be done away with. A counter to the language-learning model assumed here, of course, is that second-language acquisition is not the sole or primary purpose of the public education system. Mr. Lamrock, you have even suggested, with laudable optimism, that the new model proposed for FSL instruction in the public school system would provide a foundation upon which graduates would then build in their subsequent educations. That is, it has now been acknowledged that the NB school system, alone among provincial school systems in this country, would not strive to produce the levels of fluency required to achieve employment in a bilingual environment, in a bilingual province. Unfortunately, this line of thought also involves a few mistaken assumptions. They are as follows:

1. Second language instruction impedes instruction in other subjects.
2. All students graduating high school and seeking employment in a bilingual environment will seek post-secondary education.
3. All people seeking employment in a bilingual environment can afford instruction in French sufficient to bring them up to a level that other public school systems, through immersion, seek to instil prior to graduation.

The first assumption has already been addressed elsewhere during the active public debate that followed upon the announcement that EFI was to be abolished. The other two might be addressed briefly here as they suggest exactly the kind of elitism that you yourself have argued against. I have no doubt, Mr. Lamrock, that such was not your intention as you have made clear your opposition to elitism of any kind in our school system-a position with which I agree. It is merely my purpose here to suggest that not all jobs requiring bilingualism also require higher education. Jobs in the tourism and call centre industries, both of which play important roles in our provincial economy, come immediately to mind.

While it may be possible to elaborate upon these criticisms, such is not the primary purpose of my letter. Rather, it is to offer a few useful suggestions as to where to go from here. The first, though it flies in the face of the government's stated position, it to postpone any changes until the 2009-2010 school year. As mentioned above, this public forum that you have established may well be useful, but six weeks is by no means sufficient for adequate good-faith consultation on such a complex and volatile matter. This forum, and the other steps undertaken as a result of the recent court order, could, however, serve as useful starting points for a meaningful and productive public dialogue, and could, moreover, lead to a solution that adequately meets both the government's agenda of inclusion and every responsible parent's desire and right to secure the best possible education for his or her children. In fact, the solution may well be very close at hand.

New Brunswick's District 18 has the highest PISA scores in the country. That is, by the measure in which this government has chosen to put its faith, one district in our province is outdoing the rest of Canada. Of course, it may be true that even in our best district there is room for improvement, as Superintendent explained to me in conversation at the public information session at FHS. It is also true, however, that a model that boasts real successes is more compelling than theoretical possibilities and "X factors," especially to parents who are quite rightly concerned about their children's futures, and especially considering that Intensive French was not actually intended by its developers as a replacement for early immersion. I therefore suggest that the province base its 2009-2010 curriculum upon an adaptation of District 18's practices. And do please bear in mind that in this district, roughly 41 percent of parents choose to place their children in EFI. That is to say, the best district in the country also has very high EFI participation. I will not argue that any causal link exists here as I am sure you would spot the post hoc fallacy immediately, but I will suggest that, in the light of District 18's success, the assertion that EFI undermines the overall excellence and inclusiveness of the public education system is untenable.

Dear Mr. Lamrock:

Hello. Like many in our province, I am writing to request that you reconsider your decision in eliminating Early French Immersion from our school system.

As a native of Nova Scotia, I was not privy to French Immersion during my formative education. After grade 12, I enrolled at university in this province and played basketball for five years with teammates who were schooled in early immersion. While I never felt inferior to them with regards to education, interestingly enough, it was during tournaments in Quebec where I felt the divide. In restaurants and hotels, my teammates would modestly shrug off their language skills while I remained in awe of their abilities to communicate in French. I was especially surprised to learn that their French was obtained in public school, in all subjects just after kindergarten! They, unlike me, had experienced a wonderful "educational opportunity" at an early age and were certainly reaping the benefits of their learning.

Two years ago, I became the proud parent of a son who, I believed, would one day have that very same educational opportunity my teammates had and, once again, an opportunity that I never experienced. For my son to learn French at an impressionable time in his life, to gain proficient language skills early on for a later competitive workforce and to challenge his mind and communicative abilities in all subjects.what more could I ask for? So, I have been preparing him in English with words, songs, books and games so that he would enter immersion with ease. I was excited for my child was going to have exposure to a program I had never had.

Upon hearing the New Brunswick Government's announcement to eliminate Early Immersion last spring, I was in shock. I quietly attended a local forum on March 27 and I was in complete agreement with one expert's comments that "The government has lowered the bar" and was "Chopping off from the top half." I was also impressed with the speakers at the U de M forum and agree completely with their criticisms for this new change.

As a New Brunswick teacher, I too have a passion for literacy and a drive to improve the literacy skills of my students. Living the system, I see numerous discrepancies, none the least, I believe, are related to language learning. These are complex problems and must, as a second paneled expert declared, "May need to be further investigated to find the real issue affecting our literacy in New Brunswick". However despite my professional thoughts, I am a parent first and in my heart, I believe that grade five is too late to expect all children to attain (with rigorous training) the same background that four extra years will give them.
Instinctively, something is not right about this "leap of faith".

Mr. Lamrock, two years ago, I cast my vote for a government that would effect change to a system that I am passionate about. While I appreciate your initiative, I find it ironic that the very system I wanted to change, would be done at a cost for the most precious person in my life.

Please. I ask your government to take time to think about the best interests for all of New Brunswick's residents-our students, our teachers, our parents-many of whom, put the liberal government in power to give us quality education. I ask that you take more time to dig below the surface to find the real truth as to what is holding us back in a country where other provinces have early immersion, but are not ranked tenth in terms of our literacy rates.

Thank you.