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,

I am submitting my thoughts on the FSL proposed changes and suggestions for improvements.

Let me first say that I applaud the Government's desire to improve our education system for all students, and agree that changes need to be made. I have been actively engaged in this debate since February 27, and I have read as much as I possibly could, have participated in numerous meetings with experts, my MLA, other MLAs, the Premier's staff, with parents and citizens across the province, and yourself. I have gone to the Open Houses and spoke extensively with all the District staff involved. I have spoken with the Official Languages Commissioners (both Federal and Provincial), with business leaders, with Members of Parliament and Senators. I have spoken with many teachers from various grades and from both Core and French Immersion. I have spoken with many other parents who bring a tremendous diversity of opinion and concern. Finally, I have participated in your Stakeholders meetings and feel they were beneficial. In short, my opinions are founded in extensive research, not on anecdote.

I sincerely believe that there is a better way - of educating our children, and of harnessing this engagement that so many are now involved with. I also know that the complexity of these issues - language, inclusion, streaming, numeracy, literacy, etc - can not be solved overnight. We should be trying to build a system that all can buy into, feel proud to be a part of, and which will be strong and resilient that won't continue to be debated and tinkered with year after year.

As of now, I am entirely unconvinced that the Croll & Lee plan will address the root causes of challenges in the education system. It has been so discredited at this point that it is only responsible to set it aside and thinking more broadly. I believe that the issues of literacy have been inflated to make an argument, and that streaming is most severe in the middle schools (as standardized test scores demonstrate). I also believe that the earlier a second language program begins, the more inclusive it is for students of all abilities. The later the start, the more exclusive and elitist it becomes. The research backs this up unequivocally.

I believe that classroom composition is an issue, but that ways of addressing these have not been fully explored nor implemented. It would seem appropriate to try these prior to destroying a proven and successful program.

I have reviewed all of the formal plans submitted to the Consultation Process, to my knowledge. Further, I have seen many interesting and innovative ideas shared on the FSL site; I will let those speak for themselves.

There are various comprehensive plans that are being put forward, and I support many of them. I believe that the Dicks/Kristmanson plan is excellent, and that if we want to truly develop our children cognitively to the best possible level, than EFI is the way to go. However, knowing that there are other options, let me add some ideas I have heard discussed.

Streaming:

Streaming occurs in two ways - streaming by selection and streaming by retention.

Many of the previous FSL reports have made recommendations to address this and unfortunately, none have been implemented. Dr. Dicks has made it clear he is able to bring enough teachers up to level in terms of taking on M&R work, and I feel this is the first course of action that must be undertaken; it is not 'more resources', it is properly distributed resources.

Recommendation: Work with Education Departments at universities to build their FSL M&R programs (short and long term strategies). Since none have been hired in years, of course none have gone on for this designation; a systemic shortage, not one created by lack of interest.

At my school, we have historically had 50-50 EFI and Core students. Accordingly, we should have 50-50 in terms of support resources. This has not happened. If it were to happen, attrition would drop dramatically.

Recommendation: commit to support resources in each school proportionate to enrollment in each program.

Streaming by choice:
Streaming by choice, or self-selection, happens each year. For many reasons, parents choose Core for their children. As an informed choice, this is perfectly appropriate. However, if parents were properly informed about how EFI works, about the supports they can expect, the educational and cognitive benefits of EFI, and whether their children would enjoy it, more would participate.

Recommendation: Create comprehensive strategies to inform parents about the nature of immersion. Create sessions pre-FI and ongoing upon enrolment in FI for parents to learn how they can actively support their children, even if they do not speak French.

Recommendation: Provide AIM program in Kindergarten.
This was done as a pilot at my school for the past 2 years; enrollment into EFI has increased from 50% to 80%, as students love it, parents feel confident their children can succeed.

Classroom Composition:
This is a clear issue in Core Classes, and is complex. Some issues stem from ill-supported inclusion, some from unaddressed behaviour issues. These are not the same things and must be addressed according to the individual needs of students.

Several educators told me of the option to have SEP Caps in the classrooms. For example, let's say a grade currently has a maximum of 25 students. All children who are not on SEP would be assigned a score of 1. If there are no SEPs, then there would be 25 students. However, if there are SEPs, and we already assign them as Red or Orange, we could then assign them a score. So, if you had 3 Reds (@3 pts), and 2 Oranges (@2 pts), then you would have a proportional number of students in the class.

25 Total Points - 9 (3 Red) - 4 (2 orange) = 12 Green
Total students: 17

Clearly, any such formula would have to be worked out, but it could give much more flexibility in the school and would take the pressure off teachers who have more challenged children who need greater support.

The second item is behaviour; behaviour issues in themselves should not be automatically considered SEP, and, do need to be addressed. I know of several schools which have a designated teacher and space in the building where these issues can be addressed. As individuals, or as groups, over a day or over months, as required, specialized support is offered to students who face a number of challenges in their lives - absence from school due to illness or other, family dysfunction, anger management, sexuality, etc.

None of these issues would be addressed in a meaningful way by the Croll & Lee approach, and yet, if the system would genuinely facilitate these supports, and not in an ad-hoc way put together by particularly motivated schools, it would go a long long way to address many of the challenges of classroom composition, and would facilitate a healthy and positive learning environment for all children.

I understand that the system is complex, and the challenges we face are as well. I continue to believe that we absolutely have the capacity and the responsibility to consolidate the issues of equality and bilingualism. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I also know that there is not a quick fix, and one size does not fit all. We need to work towards helping each child meet their own maximum potential, and that doesn't happen without creativity and flexibility that our teachers show each day.

I am open-minded to our educational structure; I am not, however, open to any system that does not provide a proven path for Advanced Proficiency for at least as many children as we've graduated up until this point. I also firmly believe that we need to seriously overhaul the Core system to ensure they achieve Intermediate in significant numbers.

I look forward to August 5, and trust that you have heard some great ideas during this consultation process.

As a teacher of 12 years I am very disappointed with the governments proposal to eliminate EFI. I strongly believe the Department of Education first needs to look at improving the existing system before adopting an entirely new one. This was proven with the cancelation of the Foundation Years program. This program had some good philosophies but too much change too soon results in failure. We need to look at modifying the existing system by finding ways to include more children in EFI and dealing with the high number special need students in the core program. In short, all students would benefit without the radical changes.
I was a product of the EFI system and I must say that when I was placed in a grade 10 french class with both early and late immersion students it was clear early immersion students were more proficient in the French language. Early is better across the entire spectrum.
With respect to numeracy and literacy, we need to looks at schools who have strong results and have other schools with lower results model what they are doing. This point was made by the Minister himself at a speech directed to high school teachers in the May 2007 subject council. There are many avenues to improve numeracy and literacy without the cancelation of EFI.

While there have been many discussions about what to do about this issue - early immersion is the only way for some of New Brunswick's kids to reach an advanced proficiency level. I have reviewed the information and various options from all sides. I highly recommend that the decision that is ultimately made includes some form of early immersion option. It's the only way for the province to produce any fluently bilingual Anglophones.

Mr. Lamrock,
I have been waiting as long as I could to make my comments regarding the proposed changes to the FSL curriculum in the English language schools. There have been several reasons for the delay, the first of which is the fact that I feel this consultation period is a farce. Mr. Lamrock only did this because he was ordered to; I feel that he already has made his mind up and I personally feel that this is nothing more than a paper exercise. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to make my comments known as I had already done prior to this period of consultation. Another reason for my delay is that I was hoping the Minister Lamrock would be removed from his position and a true consultation period would be undertaken.
I was dumbfounded when I read the Ombudsman's report. This report confirmed the fears of many members of the public; that it doesn't matter what "the people" want, that decisions were made ahead of time and the Croll and Lee report was certainly not independent. I have lost a great deal of faith in the democratic process because of the reality this situation has created. The lack of transparency and the actions of the Minister of education and senior members of the Dept of Education are appalling. I am still shocked that no one has lost their job over this. Where I work those kinds of actions would certainly result in serious disciplinary issues and likely dismissal.
Now on to the task at hand, I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of the Ombudsman. I believe that at a minimum any decision should be delayed for a year in order to allow for proper consultation with the stakeholders. To truly follow the spirit of the court order a true delay is also in order. I believe there is still a large portion of the population who don't really understand the proposed changes and what they could mean for our province. This brief period of consultation during the summer months when many people are away and preoccupied with other things is not a true consultation. I attended the consultation session at Lewisville Middle School and I was again very disappointed. There was no one there interested in what I had to say or what my concerns were. There was no information available there that is not available online and I had no confidence that if I made written comments there that they would even be passed on to the Minister's office. I expect that any of those comments were simply shredded and there was no proof that they were ever made. There was no one there counting the number of people in attendance and the only thing that I read reported in the news was that the turnout was disappointing because all of the photocopied materials were not taken. Well, I for one can tell you that I was there and I didn't take anything because none of the materials had any "new" information so I decided to save a tree instead so the "numbers" cannot be considered accurate based on the departments strategy for tracking things. I engaged every person I could to try and get more information but I was simply told "I don't know" and "We are not sure at this point". It was a total waste of time for anyone who was already up to date with the issue at hand.
I was encouraged earlier this month when I heard the Minister Lamrock state that he was open to the idea of creating a true working group to really look at this issue. This is the first thing that Mr. Lamrock has said that has indicated that he is listening to the people. I found it bizarre that this roundtable discussion excluded the media, again giving rise to fears of a lack of transparency, but I feel like perhaps we are starting to move in the right direction. I sincerely hope that Mr. Lamrock is starting to realize that whatever changes are going to take place cannot be properly implemented in September 2008. To try to implement anything that soon will only create further problems and animosity between the stakeholders.
One of the things I have found most interesting in this whole process is the fact that I haven't met anyone who thinks things need to stay status quoi. We know that Core French is a disaster and that there is a real lack of available resources in EFI. However, I have also not met anyone or seen any research that says EFI doesn't work. I don't think that EFI is the problem. Core French is a problem, lack of resources that contribute to streaming in EFI is a problem, addressing the lack of French immersion options in high school course is a problem and so is lack of student accountability (i.e. no one fails). In order to correct any and all of these problems it will cost money.
Core French needs to be completely revamped to increase the intensity provided in order to give students an actual working knowledge of the language. I wonder how a cyclical type core French program might work. .. I am finishing a two year one fulltime week a month type French language program in the fall and I have gone from being a beginner to currently being in an advance intermediate group at UdeM this summer. I think this approach could be particularly useful if school were more bilingual (i.e. in signage) and there were other opportunities outside of class to use French.
I think there could be some beneficial changes made in keeping EFI and making it function better. I think that there should be a formal evaluation completed prior to students being accepted into EFI, this evaluation would be to assess student's ability to learn a second language efficiently. I happen to believe that everyone can learn a second language, but depending on aptitude this can be achieved more easily by some than by others. I think an assessment could help with retention because I feel as students achieve success they are more likely to continue. I also think this would help with streaming because I feel there would be fewer students in EFI. Or a kindergarten entry would increase accessibility but the department would need to be committed to putting the resources in place to help students with learning differences. It would also create a problem for those students like my daughter who just finished kindergarten in June and are waiting for EFI. A change like this would need to be gradually implemented so that no one is left behind.
I think a model similar to what is used in Ottawa could also be beneficial. I don't think we should reinvent the wheel, I think we need to look at the research done in that case, and perhaps modify things to meet our region needs.
I would also not be opposed to a later entry for elementary immersion i.e. grade 2 or 3 but not later than that. I think the entry point needs to be early enough that children are not self conscious about trying other things or preoccupied about how they "look" in front of their peers. I think it needs to be early enough to truly develop a more authentic accent.
I have serious concerns about NB's ability to attract new comers and retain young professionals. When people cannot transfer from one jurisdiction in the county to another because the education systems are so significantly different that is a huge problem for families who work for the federal government, or big business. Think of the impact this would have on members of the military or RCMP that regularly transfer their members. Think of the students who are currently in university and want to teach EFI... now they are faced with moving out of the province if this is truly what they want.
I truly believe that Mr. Lamrock's decision is based on financial reasons only and not on what is best for the children of this province. He is hiding behind a veil of "I want everyone to be bilingual". Intermediate or intermediate plus is not bilingual! It would be great for our core students to be at that level but that is not acceptable for our French immersion graduates. I honestly believe that if Mr. Lamrock's current plan is put in place, coupled with other government decisions such as the restructuring in health care that this is the beginning of the end of our unique status as a bilingual province and I find that incredibly troublesome. The level of racism that has come forward during this debate scares me, and reminds me of the times when it was only the "old white English men" that made decisions around here!
I find it interesting that Mr. Lamrock was quick to say how important it is for our aboriginal children to learn Mi'kmaq early and therefore essentially funded an on reserve Mi'kmaq immersion program and yet he does not feel it is important for our Anglophone children to learn French early. Mr. Lamrock must remember that for most aboriginal children English is the first language and Mi'kmaq is their second. I commend his decision to try and help the aboriginal peoples retain their language and I would love to see Mi'kmaq taught in all of our schools... but I don't understand how it is important in once instance but not the other.
I think it is important to remind Mr. Lamrock that many people have spent many years and made many decisions around the assumption that EFI would be available for our children. We chose to buy a house in a neighbourhood that had an EFI school. We chose to enrol our daughter in an English language daycare on the assumption that EFI would be available. We decided not to more to Ottawa when presented with the chance as we wanted to stay here believing we would have access to all of the same things that we would be able to access there... we also decided to wait a year to enrol our daughter in kindergarten as she has a late birthday and although academically ready for school the year prior, socially it did her a world of good to wait, she was a shy, quiet child and now she is far more outgoing and had a wonderful kindergarten experience... now we may have missed the opportunity for EFI but she would have been grandfathered in had she started school the year before... the haste that Mr. Lamrock moved is extremely frustrating for parents in this situation.
Other options:
Another option that I think that is worth investigating is the idea of creating public / private partnerships in order to help with the funding and establishment of appropriate second language programs.
Or having a pay if you can, bursary if you can't type system so that it is accessible to all. I for one am willing to pay for my child to have access to EFI, if there was an EFI private school available I would have already removed my child from the public system with all of this chaos going on.
Streaming would be minimized by reducing the size of all classes and I expect that this would also significantly help in improving our results in math and literacy.
I loved the idea that I read in a letter to the editor in the Moncton Times and Transcript some months ago about putting EFI into the francophone schools, where the students would be in a truly francophone environment, although other than francophone regions in Northern NB or very bilingual areas such as Moncton and Dieppe I believe the francophone schools are too small to accommodate an influx of EFI students.
To help with retention in EFI, create a program to help the parents also learn French, it could be in the form of instruction provided in a school in the evening, by a bursary program where parents would simply apply to receive funding for courses that already exist at private language schools, NBCC or universities.
Also to aid in retention perhaps French immersion high schools need to be created where there could be a pooling of resources so that all courses are available in French. I realize this would create a need for transportation but it is likely more effective to bus students then to have small classes or very few course options.
In short it is clear to me there are many more options that need to be investigated in more depth and with greater transparency. It is impossible to adequately do this in time for the upcoming school year! I strongly encourage Mr. Lamrock and Premier Graham to slow down and start listening to the people an agreeable solution is out there but it takes time to find it. The government must respect the spirit of the court decision of Justice Hugh McLellan lest there be further court action.
No one wants the status quo, but due to Mr. Lamrock's hasty decision in March to me it is the only reasonable solution for the upcoming school year. Parents, schools and teachers need time to prepare or any transition is bound to be a disaster!

I am the mother of two young children, one going into Grade 1 and a second going into Kindergarten in September 2008. In February, I attended the information session for students entering Grade 1 in 2008 then spent several days researching the pros and cons of the NB English and French programs. I spoke to many, many parents - those with children in the Early French Immersion Program and in the English Program and who had children who had gone through the Early French Immersion as well as the Late Immersion program. In the end, I chose to register my eldest in Early French Immersion, realizing that her learning French is important to me, and the program that would give her the greatest chance of being proficient at French was the Early French Immersion one. I also researched second language education in general and realized the benefits of learning a second language at as young an age as possible is extremely beneficial to children. I firmly believe it is not that the students who go into EFI are actually smarter than the children who go into the core program but that learning the second language has an impact on how well they score later on English, Math and Science tests. I won't repeat what I wrote in several letters to the Premier and Minister Lamrock since Minister Lamrock announced the elimination of EFI in March. They know my opinions. Now they are looking for suggestions on programming from stakeholders such as the parents of children in the education system. Based on my research of the NB education system, I believe the best FSL program is EFI beginning in Grade 1 (or Kindergarten), Core French from Grade 1-4, an optional Intensive French Program in Grade 5 (or perhaps 4 and 5 like they do in District 2) and Late French Immersion for those opting to go into it later. The Department of Education needs to make these programs work for the students in them. No matter what program students are in in school, if they are having problems these need to be identified as soon as possible and addressed with the appropriate support. The Department of Education needs to figure out what the real problem is with the English program and how to address that rather than blame it on EFI and things like streaming which IF it exists I still don't see how eliminating EFI would help. They also need to test all students proficiency at regular intervals to see just how many reach a certain level and when. I do not believe our education system is the failure it has been portrayed to be in the media in recent months. While our students score low on tests when compared to others in Canada, they may be at the lowest end (I do not believe this is because students aren't as smart as the rest of the country but that the testing and tallying of results slants the results) but they are certainly well above other countries testing. I do not believe we have terrible teachers teaching our children. I do not believe the province's children are stupid and/or illiterate. I believe there are more students leaving the school system having achieved bilingualism than the voluntary testing in Grade 12 is suggesting. And I do believe improving the system we have instead of making drastic changes like eliminating a highly successful program is the way to go. I applaud the Department of Education for wanting to improve the education system for New Brunswick children - Yes add physical education because it is the right thing to do. Add trades training because it is the right thing to do. Add music because it is the right thing to do. And learn from the mistakes of previous Departments of Education. They removed physical education, the trades and music from our education system and many years later we realize what a mistake that was. Do not make the same mistake with Early French Immersion.

Finally, after much public outcry, the Ombudsman's report and a court case, it seems that Minister Lamrock decided to listen to distraught citizens of this province....should have had all these consultations done before such a drastic change was announced...however, now that all concerned parties are talking, I think the best approach would be to leave the changes to french language instruction alone for this school year. Prove that he really does listen to and value public input,strike a working group that the people can put their trust in, because sadly by Minister Lamrock's approach,he has lost the trust of many,many New Brunswickers.

Dear Mr. Lamrock,

As a former Early French Immersion teacher, Late French Immersion teacher, Core French teacher, teacher of French as a second language to adults, as well as the parent of a bilingual child currently in the anglophone school system, I would like to express my grave concern about the New Brunswick Government's proposed changes to the French language programs in the anglophone sector.

I do not support the elimination of the Early French Immersion program.

I do support the elimination of the Core French program as it currently stands.

Late French Immersion is always a good second option to have in place as a backup to Early French Immersion, but if one needs to be eliminated, let it be Late French Immersion.

Having learned French as an adult, I understand the struggles of learning a second language later rather than earlier. The younger a child is, the more effortlessly s/he learns a second language.we've all read the studies.
The elimination of the Early French Immersion program will remove the opportunity for ALL anglophone children to learn French at the most optimum time within the school system. As the only "officially bilingual" province in Canada, removing the most effective means for our children to learn a second language is an egregious and backward step in our efforts to provide the best method of acquiring a second language within the school system. Granted, improvements need to be made to the current EFI program such as more and better support services in place for struggling students. This would improve retention in the EFI programme.

As it is currently proposed, the Late French Immersion program will create a more elitist, exclusive and "streamed" system than the Early French Immersion program has ever been accused of.at least EFI is an equal opportunity option from the outset (also keep in mind that the earlier a child begins to learn a second language, the more effortless it is). With no second language instruction until Grade 5, what student who has struggled with the Intensive French program will choose to enter Late French Immersion in Grade 6? It's a no-brainer.children will not become functionally bilingual by taking only the Intensive French program in Grade 5; nor will those who struggle choose to enter the Late French Immersion program. In effect, the outcome of what is currently proposed by the New Brunswick Government will be a significantly reduced number of functionally bilingual children by the end of Grade 12.

Ideally, as a bilingual province, I believe the best way to achieve a truly bilingual population would be for all children in New Brunswick , both francophone and anglophone to attend public school in a 50/50 language learning atmosphere: half the day in French, half the day in English. In reality, I understand this will never happen. As the second best option, the Early French Immersion program (with improvements) would be the way to go.

It has been said that the system cannot financially support two immersion programs (EFI and LFI). Then why not eliminate the program that will lead to less functionally bilingual students by the end of Grade 12: Late French Immersion.

It has been said that Early French Immersion causes a streamed system wherein only the brightest students remain, leaving English classrooms filled with low achieving students, low literacy rates, and learning disabilities. This is not caused by the Early French Immersion program. Any child can learn a second language. If the proper services were in place, the Early French Immersion program would be better able to support its struggling students.

It is fact that our provincial adult literacy levels are abysmal. This has not been caused by the Early French Immersion program. If one looks at the provincial statistics for both the anglophone and the francophone populations, it is clear that the adult literacy level for francophones is even lower than the literacy level for anglophones. I don't hear anyone reporting that this phenomenon is caused by Early English Immersion programs in the francophone schools.

I agree with the elimination of the Core French program. The outcomes from Core French programs over the last 40 years have been abysmal. The Intensive French program and/or AIM Program would be positive replacements for the current Core French program. However, any replacement for the Core French program needs to be implemented much earlier than Grade 5. It is unthinkable that children in the anglophone schools of a bilingual province will not receive ANY French instruction before Grade 5, thus wasting some of the most optimal language learning years. The Intensive French program would be an effective replacement for the Core French program; it is not an effective replacement for the Early French Immersion program.

All change involves risk. However, the most effective risk takers hear and weigh the pros and cons from all angles before proceeding.
It is my sincere wish, Mr. Lamrock, that you will decide to delay the proposed changes to all FSL programs for at least one year so that both public and professional input can be heard.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

I have been pleased with the open consultation that has gone on and am truly feel that Min. Lamrock is sincerely interested in improving the way all students learn French as a second language in NB. With that said, I have seen some of the options being proposed. I think there are good pieces in each of them. To me the crux is that we need to encourage and offer opportunity for FSL as soon as students begin in kindergarten, whether a core program (like AIM) or EFI. All students must begin French. Also, the current core French program cannot stay as is. It must be improved. AIM is an excellent choice. I have seen first hand how effective it can be on a kindergarten child, who is learning English & French at the same time - both come easily. One might say they are complementary.

I think core French needs to be given importance in education. it is the DOE job to promote and sell this to parents. It needs to be seen as part of the core material all kids need to achieve in order to succeed.

If we go with the IF in grade 4 or 5, this also needs to have value. I was told by the Director of Education for District 18 that there is no measure of success for this program. That if a child did not grasp all the concepts in the 5 months, they still moved on to grade 6! This does not make sense to me. Why have children spend 5 months in a program in which it makes no difference whether they succeed or not? it needs parameters and measures of success.

EFI is preferrable over LFI. Streaming will be less promounced with EFI. The DOE must do a better job of helping parents understand the benefits of EFI and encouraging them to put their kids in it. The supports need to be there for the kids and the parents if and when they need them.

This change affects me on many levels because

1.I am a product of EFI
2.I teach EFI
3.I teach Core French
4.I have a child in grade 2 EFI
5.I have a child entering kindergarten in September

With all of this background knowledge here is what I know, so bear with me:

1. EFI was never meant to create perfectly bilingual individuals. It was meant to give them a good base and to slowly reintroduce the first language and by high school just have courses to maintain it. Therefore an expectation of 70% bilingualism is unrealistic.

2. The science supports EFI and everyone knows this to be true. The earlier you start the easier it is to learn a second language. I remember in one of my FI methodology course at university an FI Science teacher presented his masters thesis stating that how we learn a second language was similar to the scientific method. They use and develop the same parts of the brain.

3. Teachers are expected to differentiate their lessons. They must create activities for the various levels of abilities in their class rooms while still ensuring every student achieves the same objective. So, there are simplified activities for the lower achievers, the regular activities for the average student, and enriched activities for the higher achieving student. All assessments must be modified as well.

4. A teaching strategy called "Resource based learning" was introduced a few years back, in other words, no more text books. We had to seek out many different resources and compile them into units. A lot of flipping through old books, surfing the net has been happening.

5. Another teaching methodology that was introduced a few years back in the English classrooms called "The Whole Language Approach". This assumed that children would be good readers and writers if they read and wrote. To correct their spelling or grammar would hurt their self esteem. Many of my core French students learn English grammar while being taught French grammar in my class. They don't know what a noun, pronoun or verb is.

6. Every person is an individual with individual weaknesses and strengths. I was strong with languages and weak in math, which explains why I am not a math teacher. There are those who can become brain surgeons and rocket scientists while others will become welders and plumbers and waiters and custodians. They are all equally important in our society. We need them all to function.

7. Teachers are currently working on pulling the essentials from the curriculum documents in order to ensure students are well prepared for the standardized testing society seems to hold so dear. It's called "teaching to the test" and it used to be frowned upon in our society. All these extra PD days are being used for this. I expect to see our scores go up as a result of this and not as a result of getting rid of EFI. Remember we still have 11 years of EFI to go through. Don't be fooled if the scores go up in the near future.

8. FI is not valued in the High School. Students are not encouraged to continue with their FI courses if they plan on going into Sciences at university. The scheduling doesn't allow for you to focus on both and the some guidance counselors tell students that it will be easier for them if they study Sciences in English since that is what they will be going to an English university. This makes sense. Also, FI Language Arts is a semester course whereas the English is a full year. What does this communicate to students? Less value.

9. A stressed out teacher is an unmotivated teacher and an unhappy teacher. Do we want our children to spend all day with someone who is feeling this way? There has been a downward spiral in the respect that once existed for the teaching professions. Teachers are being crapped on from many angles: parents, administrators, district office, dept. of ed. (minister of ed.), newspaper editorials etc. It makes a person want to run away screaming from the classroom. But you don't because of the kids. I'm not saying we're all perfect, but neither is society. There are good and bad people everywhere. Our kids need to learn how to deal with that.

10. We have a couple of generations of FI graduates. I am apart of these generations and it defines who I am. I feel it is a part of my culture. And now I can't pass that part of my life onto my son.

11. Many parents will begin enrolling their children in French Schools who are happy to take them and the money that comes along with it. This means a loss of money for the English districts and when numbers go down, so too does staffing.

12. Streaming (I will not use the inflammatory "segregation") has always existed. If it is such a negative thing then why don't you do away with the 1, 2 and 3 level courses in high school? And why do you only have a problem with it up to the grade 5 level? Why is it okay to separate students then? There is no logic here. You will have your "best & brightest" choosing to go into late immersion, leaving again a large number of SEP's in the English classrooms. The small class sizes occur in late immersion.

Solution #1: In a perfect world, French language instruction should start as early as possible, at the age of 2 in government run preschools. This, in my opinion, would eliminate most of the difficulties some students may encounter. There should be French Immersion Schools. That way a culture could be developed.

Solution #2: Eliminate late immersion and start EFI at kindergarten. Replace Core French with the intensive. No offense to Mr. Lamrock or Premier Graham, but listening to you speak in French is painful. Even though they may have few grammatical errors, the English accent is thick. This is what any francophone will hear first and foremost and know they are Anglos. During a job interview it will seem like this person cannot speak French very well. This is what our children will speak like if we only introduce French at such a late stage in development. In high school, FI Language courses should be full year and not one semester. They should also be required up to grade 12. Students should also be required to complete some kind of exchange to a Francophone milieu, whether it be during the Summer or the school year.

I know that I could go on and on about this topic. I guess it boils down to one thing: doors. Doors are being closed, and opportunities are being lost. We can have both. We can replace the core French with the Intensive programme as is suggested by its creator, Joan Netten, and still continue to offer EFI. Parents will feel that there is another viable option for their child to learn French and enrollment will go down in immersion thus lessening the "streaming" problem.

Mr Lamrock,
I would like to share my views on keeping the EFI in the earlier years rather than the later stages of a young child's development. I have keenly been following the situation with your announcement to have your new program take effect in grade 5 and effectively eliminate EFI in grade 1. I have attended discussions group, sent numerous letters and I was in attendance when the judge made his decision for you to consult with the parents of New Brunswick. I do applaud your decision in trying to make a change; however, change is not good if it is setting our children up for failure or lowering our expectations of what our school system can deliver in terms of functional bilingual students rather than previously fluently bilingual students. My current situation involves my son, who has been diagnosed with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder), and is attending EFI this September in grade 1. As per Mr. Wilms and your overall position, my child is classified as disabled and as such would not be one of the students who go into EFI. I am very appalled at this ignorance and stating this fact that streamlining is going on. I am determined to have my children (yes I have more than one and my second has also been diagnosed with ASD) succeed in EFI-grade 1. They might struggle, they might not but either way I will not let you use my children disabilities as an excuse to scrap EFI and to say it is streamlining. In all effect having my child attend EFI would obviously contradict the idea of streamlining. I myself have gone through the EFI-grade 1 system and along with other schools (English) there have been some hardship. Some children had to repeat a grade; however, they stuck with it and "support" was given to them in order to succeed in EFI. My own experience allowed me to become fluently bilingual and be able to write it on a resume and to use it in my job. Your expectations now are for people to write functionally bilingual on their resume which will not get them a government job. It seems due to financial constraints or the unwillingness to put more funding into the education system, that our provincial ratings are dismal and downright inexcusable. Not only are you using EFI as a scapegoat, you have yet to address the real problem of taking care of all of children whether in French, English or EFI (early or late).
Irrelevant of whether we are a bilingual province or not, learning a second language earlier in life (K-1) "is" proven to be more effective. A large percentage of NB parents want to see their kids in EFI-grade 1. I have personally seen in the Saint John area growth from one EFI-grade 1 school to five. Parents want their kids to develop to their full potential and have seen the benefits of earlier immersion not because they believe streamlining is involved. I understand that something does need to change and I suggest that your program be implemented in Kindergarden. My plan is for my children to learn "in" a different language and not to just learn a different language. It is sad that it has taken a court battle, an Ombudsman, countless experts in language for you to even listen to the people that are in support of EFI-grade 1 and their ideas. A lot of people have found you to be very arrogant on this issue and that only your solution will work. Even more think you are just doing lip service to abide by the judges ruling. Since then, there have been meaningful discussions and consultations with you in attendance. I hope you prove everyone wrong and be able to come up with a compromise with the people of New Brunswick. I thank you for your time.

I am very disappointed at the proposal to remove Early French Immersion. As a bilingual province it astounds me that this would be removed, it is a step backward. I wish to allow my children the opportunity to become fluently bilingual, therefore, I registered my daughter in the Early French Immersion Program next year. I seek opportunities for my children to learn French by having a French childcare provider who taught her French from the age of 10 months. My daughter also attended French Camp this summer to learn French. The research strongly supports early learning for language development.
I am astounded that Early French Immersion could possibly be removed in a bilingual province. If I lived in Nova Scotia my children could start French Immersion in Kindergarten as well as many other provinces. It saddens me to think this valuable learning opportunity is at risk of being removed.
This decision does not retain or attract people to New Brunswick.
I think it would be more beneficial to follow the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Education's decision to terminate Late French Immersion and having earlier starting points.
Government representatives need to listen to the people that elected them to office.
Please keep Early French Immersion.

I have read and reviewed the latest information on the subject including some of the options. However I still feel strongly that early exposure to French as a second language provides greater number of students with Advanced bilingual capabilities later on - capabilities that go on to be important assets in the workforce. Please keep the option of early immersion and take note of all the many comments submitted to improve the overall situation so all New Brunswick kids can better succeed in school.

My husband and I, both graduates of EFI (1980s), do not agree with the changes being proposed by Mr. Lamrock. We do not feel that what is being proposed will have any improvement on the EFI system. We feel it will have an negative impact going foward, and put students at a disadvantage. Although we do agree that improvements need to be made, we feel that the improvements are needed in the early years (K-2), as well as in the later years (high school).

Based on our experience, and the experience of our eldest child currently in the EFI system; we have the following comments / suggestions:

1- The French language should be introduced in kindergarten. A few hours a week would allow both children and their parents to be comfortable with the French language and help them decide what would be the best option moving forward into Grade 1. This was piloted at Connaught Street School with great success - 2/3rds of the kindergarten classes chose to enrol into EFI. Prior to introducing the French language in Kindergaten it was pretty evenly split.

2 - The expectations are that children can read and write at the end of the Kindergarten year; therefore having had the very basic foundation in English.
I would like to know the literacy stats for the children who have gone through Kindergarten in the public school system. Those before that were in private kindergartens or home care - the expectations and outcomes were different. Therefore, those currently in FI in high school did not have the benefit of a public Kindergarten class, and therefore did not have any basic English education before entering EFI. Therefore the stats for overall achievement are not necessarily reflective of the current system, which one would assume is better.

3 - Everyone, depending on numbers, has the opportunity to enroll in Immersion. It is not elitist and it is not meant to stream. It is a choice to enrich the children's learning and provide them an advantage for the future.

4 - The streaming appears to be occurring due to the lack of support / resources for children who are struggling or have special needs.

5 - Falling through the cracks is as a result of no longer holding students back who do not achieve the expected outcomes. The Department of Education should be focusing on educating the children and not focus on the "stigma" of being held back.

6 - The intensive French should be added to the CORE program to improve results.

7- Do not allow for drop out of EFI. If a child struggles in Math - they are not allowed to drop out?!? Provide the resources to work with those students who are stuggling.

8 - In Grades 11 and 12, most students are preparing for post-secondary education at english institutions, and therefore choose to enroll in English courses rather than French courses. Both my husband and I did this and we do not believe it should be considered dropping out. Therefore, your numbers that compare enrolment in Grade 1 to the numbers in Grade 12 are not true representation of the EFI system.

9 - Aside from an early introduction of French, the focus should be on retaining the students in the program, as well as making improvements in the high school years. High school french should focus on conversational french, and it should provide more experiential learning.

As someone who has been heavily involved in this issue since it was announced in February/March I have waited until the last days of the consultation to put my thoughts here in this on-line forum. The reason I have waited is that I wanted to read the comments of others in order to gain an understanding of their concerns and issues to ensure I was not imbalanced in my own views. The reason I believed I needed to watch and listen and read is that I have a child registered to start grade one early French immersion in just 6 weeks time. We registered at the request of the school district in February just like an estimated 1500 families who register to enter the program each year. Our family, like the 1500 families this year, would be the first to be affected by the Minister�s decision in March which was subsequently quashed the Court of Queen�s Bench on June 11.
What I have learned from listening, watching, reading and participating in this debate is that there is no widespread appetite for the elimination of early French immersion. There is, however, a negative attitude about the program on the part of officials within the Department of Education and that has led to a mind-set that rationalizes the elimination as a panacea to solve all the problems they have. This mind-set led to the creation of a report, which has been proven to have been far from created in an independent nature, based on flawed statistical interpretation and therefore lacks the ability to examine the issue in a neutral fashion. This has been verified by the New Brunswick Ombudsman�s investigation and subsequent report.
Having said all of this I do admit there are widespread issues within the education system in New Brunswick. Many other posts to this forum have outlined these and have also provided counter points to them: for example, the Francophone school system is heterogeneous yet it has lower test schools in literacy and math. Or, the French immersion system is chronically under-funded yet continues to produce successful students. Issues surrounding the gentle push-out of the program when issues in learning arise rather than finding solutions to continue to work with a child who may have particular challenges in learning. We have heard about the dichotomy between urban and rural schools, socioeconomic issues, and levels and parental involvement in education. These are the wide and disparate issues which the elimination of a tried and true program to solve.
This debate has always been more than a French second language debate, although that is what it has been labeled. The debate should have been more appropriately labeled a debate on inclusion, or literacy, or math etc�. So many issues have been drawn into this debate in order to justify the elimination of a program which is a positive program for New Brunswick. The truth is immersion does work for a large number of students who enter the program. They have positive outcomes. Their experiences are no less valid than any other persons in the overall equation. Their rights and concerns are no less valid than those of other groups.
To fix the myriad of issues there have been many valid plans put forward at stakeholder sessions which have been both public and private. The plans put forward have addressed issues surrounding the following paradigms as recently outlined by the Minister:
Submission to French Second Language Consultation On-line Forum
Equality versus Choice
Intermediate (Proficiency Outcomes) versus Advanced (Proficiency Outcomes)
Risk versus Proven
Some of those ideas which have been put forward that make the most sense in integrating these issues include elements such as:
�French instruction as early as kindergarten using the AIM model to encourage more registration into French immersion at grade one. There is evidence of this working at Connaught Street School in Fredericton. The ultimate goal would be to build towards a system of universal French second language instruction at an earlier age that the grade five year.
�Use of a form of French instruction, early immersion, blended immersion or earlier Intensive French (earlier than grade 5) followed by middle immersion in grade 3 or 4. The ultimate plan is something that must be determined and endorsed by education specialists.
Both of the above options seek to make a more equal education environment, which still provides choice to parents, while preserving Advanced Proficiency Outcomes using proven and tested methods.
Further issues can be addressed in this manner:
�Test proficiency in the grade 10 year rather than grade 12. Closer to the time frame when students are still enrolled in second-language instruction and before they begin to alter their academic studies to allow for applications to English universities.
�Better �marketing�, for lack of a term, of the benefits of second-language programs to families who might have questions about them. Thereby influencing choice, something the Minister asked stakeholders for advice on during the 100-person session in Fredericton on July 10th. He asked �how do we influence parental choice?�
�A phased approach to the changes is necessary to allow for proper testing and monitoring and also to ensure that entire cohorts of students are not left behind in the process.
�Lengthening the school day to reduce the compressed learning we have now due to time concerns. This would also more easily allow the integration of the government�s goals in gym, music and art. Goals which do not have to come at the expense of second-language learning.
�Lengthening the school day in combination with reducing bus runs would also reduce cost for fuel and reduce the carbon footprint of the Province of New Brunswick.
�Finally, if a problem of class composition exists there should be a mechanism by which class size could be reduced appropriately to accommodate the best learning outcomes for the students and teacher/teacher assistants in a class.
What is ultimately clear is a solution is needed which is outcome-based. A solution which produces a large percentage of Advanced Proficiency bilingual students (as defined in Policy 309). In order to achieve this, a clear path to Advanced Proficiency must be maintained.
We simply do not have data to support the Advanced Proficiency outcomes in the Intensive French program despite the recent claims of Dr. Netten regarding instruction prior to grade five. The program has not been monitored long enough and it has NEVER been used in a school system without some prior instruction in French. I will use the words of Mr. Donald Savoie and his colleagues �The Gamble is too High�.
This is not to say that the Intensive French program is not a valid and valuable form of instruction, it is a good replacement to core French instruction, but it is a good replacement for it in an overall system which also includes an early start to French immersion for those seeking a path to Advanced Proficiency.
In closing, I am certain this is not the first time the Minister will have heard that it is tantamount to an insurmountable task to make changes to the program based on this current consultation process effective for September 2, 2008. This is not an issue which can be solved with a snap, it requires time to implement, time to educate stakeholders on the benefits and time to source the appropriate human resources and have them trained and prepared. The Minister now has many good ideas from a fully engaged group of stakeholders. We also have a state of support of the importance of French second language programming from many, many groups: prominent Francophone; arts groups, education experts from across the country, and on an on.
On the one hand I do not envy the Minister�s position. On the other I can see the positives that have come from this process, a process which has taken many hours of personal time in my family and many others for the past five months. I am pleased we have come to this point and I, along with much of the Province, eagerly await the final decision on August 5th.
I believe the Minister has a huge opportunity to make something much better than it ever was before by finding the correct balance between those paradigms given to stakeholders to consider: equality versus choice; Advanced versus Intermediate; risk versus proven.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7ecc8284-b182-431b-b1c5-8e418a9a33e3
Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Keep out the slow kids. Keep out the troubled kids. Keep out the poor and the crippled. Only admit the bright, well-behaved, hard-working kids from prosperous homes.

That's the ideal classroom. That's the one we want our kids in. And thanks to French immersion, we've figured out how to get it.

Oh, we'll never say so out loud. We may not even admit it to ourselves. But let's be frank.

Everyone knows why French immersion is so popular among the ambitious parents who drive high-end SUVs, serve on school committees, and draft detailed plans for getting their children into Harvard. It's because immersion is the elite stream.